3rd Update: 3.46am, 8.7.06 (only up this early because I'm about to catch a plane): Since I'm about ready to leap 'off the grid' for the week, I thought I'd offer one more follow-up. While the behind-the-scenes dialogue is not complete between Mr. Brittain and myself, I was appreciative of his polite request that I remove his logo via screen shot/capture out of respect for his self-created concept and copyright. Due to his request on a personal level, the screen capture is now gone (unless it's already been captured by another aggregator or RSS disseminator-- irony of ironies, I suppose). Normally, that'd bring up another round of questions...but respect is more important to me than technical ability. To that end, I offer up a recent post by PSFK (8.6.06) that speaks to a similar situation about the appropriateness of fair use when it comes to aggregators. This is not to fan the flame on my part. It's merely a recognition that folks with far more at stake and far more insight are asking the same questions I am. That's all. Mr. Brittain and I will continue to dialogue behind-the-scenes. And I'm not morally apposed to aggregators. It's merely a search for the gray areas rather than explicit right/wrong. Clearly ALL OF US are in new territory as the Web2.0 becomes more and more populated. Some of the rules are written but 90% are more 'frontier' common sense -- a "blog smart' approach, rather than a legal liability model. Aggregator or blog, there are individual voices behind almost all of it. If not, we wouldn't be having a debate. Robots arne't interested in debates, just batteries. ALWAYS the opportunity to gain insight via debate/disagreement in these situations. And even a chance to connect on some level. So, Mr. Brittain's request is honored and the logo/screen shot has been deleted from my original post. And I'm headed to Montana. He'll respond to my last email sometime this week. I'll respond on Friday. All behind-the-scenes. At some point after that I'll add a new post that will be free of anything vitriolic or personally attacking; just exploring the bigger ideas as I do about anything else. Perhaps Scoble and company will have some insights on this later in the week. Clearly they are further out on the entire gangpplank than I, so we'll see what they say. Finally, DK -- I agree with you and your recent email. And appreciate your insights. Again, 'frontier' territory here. Just gotta see where it all leads...
2nd Update: 11:19pm, 8.6.06. The ONLY value lies in reading both sides. Mr. Brittain has a heck of a CV, clearly is a passionate educator and past teacher-of-the-year, has proven himself talented and able professionally across his career, and runs an important program at his university. He has a right to be frustrated and respond as he sees fit, as he does here: http://technology4teachers.com/node/15121 I accept his personal reaction about my title/research as simply 'currency of being in the blogosphere', and frankly it's his call. My title or real job or even my family can be used as fodder. Not sure I hide any of it. Not sure it takes the conversation anywhere, but again its not my call. But, do read his post. http://technology4teachers.com/node/15121 He's an articulate guy with a passion for technology who is using his site as a platform to respond. Certainly expected. The conversation demands both sides. One opinion (mine or anyone's) means little in the end. I suspect that semantics is a terrible thing to waste, but that even in spite of disagreement and a perception that this may have been a personal attack on him (rather than an evaluation of a 'site' or object) that there is still more to learn from a guy like Mr. Brittain (Jym is his preffered name, which is a cool play on James) than to simply dive into the flamewar foxhole. Either way, check out his post. http://technology4teachers.com/node/15121 If you agree with him, great. Tell me, tell him. If you disagree with me, tell me and tell him, too. If you have a way to elevate the conversation -- to make it about the larger implications of how sites can be appropriately transparent as to what they do and how they use their tools (RSS or other) -- even better. All of us are starting to see more and more false sites that use aggregators as a way to draw traffic for other purposes, as ways to appear something they are not. When something is not clear when you go looking for it, it's worth checking into. His site is real. And he's not drawing revenue or begin intentionally false. Just a effort to maximize transparency thing, is all I'm saying...esp. if my writing ends up on someone else's site out of context. Something we can ALL get better at. Talk to Doug Johnson at the Blue Skunk blog if you really want to see how transparent you are. He'll show you the way. And you'll be better for it! Beyond that, I've emailed Mr. Brittain back after his aforementioned post on his own site (which he also left in a blog comment to Harold Jarche's comment) and figure the rest is something he and I can either sort out or leave behind. He gets to choose whether he responds or not. Again, his call. To the rest of you, it's your opinion...so go where it leads you. But enough of my update...go read Mr. Brittain's response post. http://technology4teachers.com/node/15121 Good stuff, no matter what side of the fence you're on.
1st Update: 9:35pm, 8.6.06. Mr. Brittain responded by email and by blog comment earlier tonight (you can read the comment to your right), both of which I respect and appreciate. I've emailed him back; hoping to get some further feedback as to 'clarity' on his site. His feedback came in 2 parts: a) instructing me as to what a news aggregator is (which I already knew...although I suppose it's always valuable to get clarification just in case), and b) suggesting that I turn off my syndication element on the blog if I didn't like his set-up (which is hardly the point). I don't argue with the reality of news aggregators, nor am protesting such. Gosh-darn good stuff...especially if it's blatantly clear what it is the second you enter the site. Period. But I do question sites that lack any obvious background as to what they are are.
Go to Technology4Teachers. Here's what the 'Home' page says:
Welcome to Technology4Teachers.com
So, your administration placed a computer or computers in your classroom. Now you are expected to use these "personal confusers" to make your classroom more technologically rich, raise the technology use among yourself and your students, AND teach all your core curriculum during the school year.
Fear no more. This site was designed with you in mind. We are here to hold your hand, answer your questions, provide guidance and tips to turn you into your school's techno-wizard.
Is it me? Or is there a serious lack of a positioning statement, a definition, a mission, or anything remotely close to a clarification moment? Does this talk about news aggregation??? Mmmm.
Seriously, go to the site. Search around. His bio is easy to read. It implies 'ownership'. It implies a connection with his university. It implies that what I find is related to him, his university, and without an obvious disclaimer, potentially his own summaries or words. Seek an 'about' page, think through the 'Home' page narrative, and imagine being a first-time visitor. Again, is it me?
Okay, back to the original post if you have read the update first...
(The original post) Questions of the day:
- Does an editor-run "News Aggregator" have to offer any context or clarity when they re-print another person's writing/post word-for-word, or are they somehow technically off-the-hook in this Web2.0 world?
- If they are doing it from the halls of higher education, as a program director, are they obligated to use traditional academic citations, or again are they given a wider degree of license if they do it under the guise of a blog or a "news aggregator"?
- Is there a line?
- Should I care?
If you had told me a year ago when I started blogging that anyone outside of a crazy aunt might discover my blog posts, I'd have paid you a dollar and simply rolled my eyes. Since then, I've come to realize how quickly a site gets discovered (leaving comments and Google Juice and an amazing ricochet of blogger links is a powerful combo!). Sometimes in spite of yourself.
So, tonight when a good friend (DK of MediaSnackers and phatgnat) sent an email with the following question, I began to scratch my head a bit,...and even more so after really digging into the gentleman's web site 'news aggregator':
"Why is your post ending up on anothers site?"
I clicked the link he sent, and suddenly found myself on a site billed as Technology4Teachers. Mmm. Okay, relevant on the surface. I like teachers. I like technology. I can almost say that my original post had something (okay, very little, actually) to do with teachers and technology...and I almost called it a day. But curiosity dragged the cat around a bit. And then I started to get frustrated, or maybe even more confused. And tired of trying to find answers on the site that should have been there.
The link that had my post -- word for word -- had a) zero context and b) had very limited connection back to a main site other than a 'Home' link and a biographical sketch of the site's creator/owner (perhaps?). So, I decided to go to the 'Home' page and root around. Except there was very little to find. NO 'about' or 'contact' page. The same bio info, which eventually led me to the owner's email (took some Googling, but by that point I was frustrated and decided that I was going to email him directly to see how a university instructor/director was using a 'news aggregator' with zero to limited context, in a way that could easily be seen as if it had been written by him). While the links were there, there was zero set-up. Just my words, word-for-word, and no other disclaimer.
In any event, here is my email. Hopefully the guy will be kind enough to write back. Hopefully it's an easy explanation. A class project, perhaps. Something that I as an ex-teacher can appreciate. But still, he's in an academic setting where citations are still king and he's offering a site with his own bio info...and at some point he needs to connect the dots for the random visitor.
Wondering if you can help me with a question or two.
A close friend noticed a blog post of mine written word for word on your Technology4Teachers site. Granted, it had a link back to my blog ("think:lab") which was appropriate, but there was no context or indicator that it was a word-for-word re-print. I also noticed that you had a link back to Stephen Downes via "Conversation" but again no context to suggest whether any of my words were his (vice versa). I also did a quick search of my blog on your site and found another handful of posts.
This led me to search your site for as much background as possible in order to see if on alternative pages there were any indicators of what the "News Aggregator" might be (or mean) to someone who did not seek more than casual understanding. There are no indicators whatsoever. Thus, it'd be possible for someone to locate a Google link, head to your site, see the 'post', assume it was written by you (or your team)...and be done with it. On the other hand, while links to the original sources are critical, without proper context a visitor isn't necessarily going to seek full understanding.
Considering the obvious connections between Technology4Teachers and Northeastern State University, it would seem odd that proper source citation would not take place. In a non-academic environment, as is the case with the increasing # of news aggregators (Technorati, etc.), one cannot expect the same degree of transparency...even though it should still be there.
When time allows, I'd appreciate some background on the purpose of your site, its audience, and how you clarify sources in a way that an average visitor would be able to clearly understand very quickly after visiting your site. While part of me was flattered to have been highlighted by another site, it lacked the obvious protocol that most bloggers use in today's link culture.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Christian Long
I'm not personally attacking Mr. Brittain. Imagine he's a good guy who's really trying to help his university train teacher-to-be's how to imbed technology into their curriculum. And frankly, I'm hoping this leads to a conversation, and perhaps even some back-n-forth over time. Might as well get value out of confusion, is my opinion. Sometimes disagreement leads to connection. Sometimes.
But, if he's going to offer this much personal info on a site that is clearly his own and then offer at best a minor degree of clarity as to what his site does and how he came upon his material (in this case, my material), then perhaps its in all of our best interest to put all the cards on the table.
Heck, DK's a pretty tech/research-savvy guy who knew immediately it was my original post...but even he was confused why it was presented word-for-word on another site. So maybe I'm getting hot under the virtual collar for nothing...but something strange is afoot at the Circle K here.
Or maybe not, but all the dots haven't been connected and I'm still curious as a mad hatter.
For a "learning professional", he sure doesn't have much to say himself.
Posted by: Harold Jarche | August 06, 2006 at 09:08 PM
Mr. Long,
Thank you for your inquiry, and for posting your concern as well as your email to your website.
My web site serves as a news aggregator of existing RSS feeds. Those feeds are collected on an hourly basis and displayed for readers where ever they may be. The nature of RSS feeds allow for this aggregation as well as links to the original content. As you may have noticed the articles collected may or may not contain the entire article, yet they all DO link back to the entire article. Every article also has a link labelled "source" that lists all the articles aggregated from each RSS source as well as the URL for the feed
Simply search google for the term "news aggregator" for more understanding of the process. My site is not a blog. It is a news aggregator. Individuals with accounts on my server, may if they choose keep a blog.
If you object to your content being syndicated, turn off the syndication function of your blog.
Jym Brittain
Editor/Owner Technology4teachers.com
Posted by: Jym Brittain | August 06, 2006 at 09:13 PM
Mr. Jarche,
What I had to say was posted in email before I had the "pleasure" of reading this blog. My complete reply is on my website, http://technology4teachers.com/node/15121
Is the term news aggregator that difficult to comprehend?
Posted by: Jym Brittain | August 06, 2006 at 10:21 PM
I see this one as a design issue. Anyone looking at that page like at a glance would assume that this was Mr. Brittain's personal blog containing content generated by him. It would not be at all difficult for him to make it obvious that this is a canned aggregator of other people's material -- simply including the original author's name in each post would make a huge difference.
Looks like he's put a large disclaimer post at the top of the main page, which is good...and removed the google ads, which somehow makes it much less odious.
Posted by: Jeremy | August 15, 2006 at 12:17 PM
Jeremy,
Yes, you are right -- it is a design issue in many ways, and Jym made good steps recently by adding the disclaimer. You still have to be 'motivated' to read beyond the first line to get to the disclaimer, but I can't fault him for effort. Ultimately, it's about transparency, which is an off-shoot of intention and design.
Google ads are fair. There is no law that a blog or aggregator or web site or whatever should/should not have ads. We all need revenue to make the world go round, and buy milk each Sunday morning. But it did suggest at first that the site was purely profiting off of other people's work...which did bother me, but I didn't worry too much about it because I didn't think there was a lot of money being made. Principle, problem; reality, minor splinter of concern. But I do think he made a solid move by removing them to at least demonstrate a good-faith effort in terms of clarifying that his use of an aggregator (with the original person's name -- excellent!) was not meant to profit off of others. So, again, he did the right thing given a range of options.
Jym wrote a strong email to me and another gentleman recently (a few days after his initial emails/comments that expressed frustration) talking about his re-thinking of his initial site and its use today. I was impressed by it and respect is intentions. The 'argument' is over.
I continue to believe that transparency is king, whether you or I choose or not. The blogoshere will hunt the wabbits one way or another!
Posted by: Christian | August 19, 2006 at 11:13 PM