<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Blogs and the attribution dilemma</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/05/12/blogs-and-the-attribution-dilemma/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/05/12/blogs-and-the-attribution-dilemma/</link>
	<description>... at the intersection of media, technology, business and the web</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 21 Mar 2010 21:21:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Ars Technica acquired by Conde Nast - mathewingram.com/media</title>
		<link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/05/12/blogs-and-the-attribution-dilemma/comment-page-1/#comment-337988</link>
		<dc:creator>Ars Technica acquired by Conde Nast - mathewingram.com/media</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 21:24:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mathewingram.com/work/?p=2413#comment-337988</guid>
		<description>[...] $25-million for Ars Technica, the tech site that recently caused a minor blog storm over an alleged lack of attribution in their blogs [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] $25-million for Ars Technica, the tech site that recently caused a minor blog storm over an alleged lack of attribution in their blogs [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ars Technica snapped up by Conde Nast &#187; mathewingram.com/work &#124;</title>
		<link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/05/12/blogs-and-the-attribution-dilemma/comment-page-1/#comment-337987</link>
		<dc:creator>Ars Technica snapped up by Conde Nast &#187; mathewingram.com/work &#124;</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 21:23:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mathewingram.com/work/?p=2413#comment-337987</guid>
		<description>[...] $25-million for Ars Technica, the tech site that recently caused a minor blog storm over an alleged lack of attribution in their blogs [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] $25-million for Ars Technica, the tech site that recently caused a minor blog storm over an alleged lack of attribution in their blogs [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ReneRitchie.net &#187; Blogs and the attribution dilemma Â» mathewingram.com/work &#124;</title>
		<link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/05/12/blogs-and-the-attribution-dilemma/comment-page-1/#comment-337978</link>
		<dc:creator>ReneRitchie.net &#187; Blogs and the attribution dilemma Â» mathewingram.com/work &#124;</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 02:45:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mathewingram.com/work/?p=2413#comment-337978</guid>
		<description>[...] Blogs and the attribution dilemma Â» mathewingram.com/work &#124;  In the interest of balance, I emailed Ars founder Ken Fisher to ask him for a comment on the allegations, and he said that in the case of IPDemocracy, it was a simple mistake in which â€œthe link got removed accidentally in the editing phase,â€ that it was fixed as quickly as possible and that there was â€œno intent to deceive.â€ As for MG Sieglerâ€™s post, he said that Siegler wasnâ€™t the only blog to make the comparison between the iPhone and the game of Risk (this blog also did) and that therefore he didnâ€™t deserve a link. In any case, he said, Ars didnâ€™t see Sieglerâ€™s post and wrote its own version at about the same time (the site said it was published later because editors were busy).   May 15, 2008 - Web, Writing - [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Blogs and the attribution dilemma Â» <a href="http://mathewingram.com/work" title="http://mathewingram.com/work" target="_blank">mathewingram.com/work</a> |  In the interest of balance, I emailed Ars founder Ken Fisher to ask him for a comment on the allegations, and he said that in the case of IPDemocracy, it was a simple mistake in which â€œthe link got removed accidentally in the editing phase,â€ that it was fixed as quickly as possible and that there was â€œno intent to deceive.â€ As for MG Sieglerâ€™s post, he said that Siegler wasnâ€™t the only blog to make the comparison between the iPhone and the game of Risk (this blog also did) and that therefore he didnâ€™t deserve a link. In any case, he said, Ars didnâ€™t see Sieglerâ€™s post and wrote its own version at about the same time (the site said it was published later because editors were busy).   May 15, 2008 &#8211; Web, Writing &#8211; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: who cares</title>
		<link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/05/12/blogs-and-the-attribution-dilemma/comment-page-1/#comment-374265</link>
		<dc:creator>who cares</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 May 2008 18:44:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mathewingram.com/work/?p=2413#comment-374265</guid>
		<description>&quot;But a history of this behavior and you bet I&#039;m going to call BS on it.&quot;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Put up or shut up.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Be sure to provide specific evidence of plagiarism (or whatever it is that you&#039;re bitching about).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;But a history of this behavior and you bet I&#39;m going to call BS on it.&#8221;</p>
<p>Put up or shut up.</p>
<p>Be sure to provide specific evidence of plagiarism (or whatever it is that you&#39;re bitching about).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kyle Mathews</title>
		<link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/05/12/blogs-and-the-attribution-dilemma/comment-page-1/#comment-374267</link>
		<dc:creator>Kyle Mathews</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 May 2008 18:42:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mathewingram.com/work/?p=2413#comment-374267</guid>
		<description>so it&#039;s silly for anyone without hard proof to jump to conclusion that someone else with the same idea MUST of stolen it from you. Two people with similar background, reading the same material, thinking about the same subject, are more likely than not to occasionally have an identical thought.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>so it&#39;s silly for anyone without hard proof to jump to conclusion that someone else with the same idea MUST of stolen it from you. Two people with similar background, reading the same material, thinking about the same subject, are more likely than not to occasionally have an identical thought.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
