When the Internets attack: Redux

I'm not going to spend much time on this topic, but since I did devote a blog post to it, I wanted to deliver an update on the Cooks Source/plagiarism/copyright issue.


as of Nov 9, there has been an official release from Cooks Source describing the impact of the internet response and the changes that have been made since then.  They do not mention the unprofessional response that precipitated the .. er... storm.


I will make a series of posts sometime in the near future about internet publication and copyright, but I'll put those out when I have time to research them properly.


Anyway, I also came across Gaudio's update, and a blog-cap of recent events.  The blog-cap concludes...

1. The snarky apology is likely from editor Griggs (based on the reasoning that the mag's FB page was still under the control of Cooks Source at the time it was made, and that the tone matches that of the previous email).
   
2. The accusation of FB hacking is bogus.
   
3. Cooks Source has apologized and supposedly offered compensation in the form of the donation Gaudio requested, and a Food Bank donation.
   
4. Cooks Source's explanation of how this happened is unsatisfactory.

In the original post, I should have devoted some time to another side of internet mauling: cyber bullying.  Some of the responses I saw to this issue - particularly the bullying of small companies that advertise in the magazine - were completely out of line.  And it wasn't a simple case of too many people jumping on the bandwagon at once.  Fake/Troll accounts were made and used to issue inaccurate statements.  At least one Facebook user posted the contact information of advertisers and encouraged other users to actively harass/spam each company until they posted a public apology and retraction of their advertising on Facebook.

I looked for the discussion topic to quote some examples, but I think it was flagged for removal.  Which is good.

That particular Facebook user also boasted about enlisting the aid of his mom.  Apparently, they don't get along but regularly come together for the purpose of phoning for politics, etc.  Can we say issues?


I think the biggest tragedy/point of amazement is that this thing could have been avoided.  Even if the work was 'erroneously submitted', when Gaudio called them out, there was an appropriate response, and it was not made.


Even when the internet exploded, there was an appropriate response and it was not made.


One of the former advertisers, 2nd Street Baking Co (which jumped on twitter and FB to defend itself against the hate mail/calls), summed it up very well in a few tweets on Nov 8, quoted below.

2ndStreetBaking Laura 

@ 

@techbelle I think it is the general sentiment that if Cooks Source had been apologetic and taken responsibility, this would already be over

2ndStreetBaking Laura 

@ 

@techbelle but it is the apparent arrogance and lack of owning up to it that has enraged people further

I think Laura at 2nd Street Baking tweeted all that really needs to be said.  


The End.

When the Internets attack!

Last week had an amazing (to me) incident in which IronMan killed its debut IronMan Access program following a volatile response from the triathlete community.  Social media (twitter, FB, forums, etc) played a large role in this process.


Today... repeat.


This story is summarized so well elsewhere that I'll be brief.  Cooks Source, a small Massachusetts-based food magazine, took an article from a blogger named Monica Gaudio, 'edited it' and published it along with her name.  There was no request to use the article, and the article is present in the original publication (Godecookery) and on Monica's domain, and is copyrighted.  Gaudio found her work on the web and emailed the magazine to find out what happened.  


She asked for an apology on facebook (the facebook fanpage is essentially the magazine's web site) and in print in Cooks Source, and for a donation ($130/$.10/word of the original article) to the Columbia School of Journalism.  She received the following reply, supposedly from Editor Judith Griggs (Bolded emphasis mine):

"Yes Monica, I have been doing this for 3 decades, having been an editor at The Voice, Housitonic Home and Connecticut Woman Magazine. I do know about copyright laws. It was "my bad" indeed, and, as the magazine is put together in long sessions, tired eyes and minds somethings forget to do these things.But honestly Monica, the web is considered "public domain" and you should be happy we just didn't "lift" your whole article and put someone else's name on it! It happens a lot, clearly more than you are aware of, especially on college campuses, and the workplace. If you took offence and are unhappy, I am sorry, but you as a professional should know that the article we used written by you was in very bad need of editing, and is much better now than was originally. Now it will work well for your portfolio. For that reason, I have a bit of a difficult time with your requests for monetary gain, albeit for such a fine (and very wealthy!) institution. We put some time into rewrites, you should compensate me! I never charge young writers for advice or rewriting poorly written pieces, and have many who write for me... ALWAYS for free!"

Hm.

Thus, the Internets storm commenced.  I first saw this on twitter, but within an hour it had exploded.  The Cooks Source site was not functioning at the time of this posting.  Their facebook fan page is now full of hate mail.  When you Google Cooks Source, most of the links that come up refer to this issue.  


There is even a pop-culture reference to the editor of Cooks Source.

No public statement has been made by Cooks Source at this time.

This brings up some really interesting issues regarding writing and the web.  It is clear that just because something is on the internet it is not public domain.  How do you think videos can be pulled from youtube? 

Also, how should periodicals (web or otherwise) interact with the blogging community?  Clearly not like this, although it's allegedly not the first time that Cooks Source has lifted work.


Who should be responsible for policing/enforcing the standards of journalism if an Editor is clearly incapable of doing the job?  Does the periodical's readership deserve to be informed?  Many people have suggested to Gaudio that she obtain an attorney.  Some of the other sources of Cooks Source's alleged misappropriations include NPR and Martha Stewart - will these entities respond?  Would they have been aware of the plagiarism if not for this incident?


Finally, what constitutes web plagiarism?  I'm not sure this question applies to the above episode, because I can't compare articles.  However, there is a thread on the Cooks Source Facebook page where previously posted articles (up for discussion before this SNAFU, I guess) are 'compared' with originals.  At least one does not seem all that similar to me - it more seems like the articles are similar in idea, with the Cooks Source broadened with more elaboration.   So that brings up the following case in point: would this blog post (doubtless similar to many many others - see the links), mostly the paraphrasing/summary, count as plagiarism?  


POST-SCRIPT EDIT:  In addition, several of the alleged duplications brought up on facebook and twitter are still credited to the original author (at least, the ones that I checked out).  Is it possible that Cooks Source is being condemned wrongly for some instances where the author may be aware/have been compensated for their work?  Is this OK?


You can see the original article here.  If anyone has a link to the Cooks Source article, I'd love to see it.

I find this a fascinating example of how social media can play a huge role in PR issues.  Wonder what will happen next.