In Which Bon Disagrees With WaPost

The Washington Post ran an article that brought up some good discussion about plagiarism and linking.  I'm going to throw out my take on it, but I say upfront that I have no legal or ethical backing besides some overall Internet research. Ironic, but there you have it.

The essay, by freelance writer Anna Lewis, was partly about the early history of women in computer science. During the 1960s and ’70s, women were welcomed into the field as computer programmers. In numbers and responsibility, women were gaining ground rapidly, unusual for science fields back then.

Lewis’s essay opened by looking back to a 1967 article from Cosmopolitan magazine, “The Computer Girls,” which touted the new science as a career that young women should pursue. Lewis finished her essay by describing her recent difficulties in bringing young women into Fog Creek Software, where she worked as a recruiter.

Lewis said she found the Cosmo article on Ensmenger’s site through a Google search. Her only attribution was to Thomas J. Misa’s essay collection “Gender Codes: Why Women Are Leaving Computing,” in which Ensmenger has one key essay and cites the Cosmo story. Lewis did not cite Ensmenger directly.

In the original blog posting, Lewis embedded lots of links to her sources, including one to Ensmenger’s Web site. “In my mind, linking is far more powerful than a footnote or citation,” because it takes a reader to the source’s Web site, where there is a biography, a link to the book and more, Lewis said.

But links are hard to reproduce in a print version. And Dry didn’t insert any links into The Post’s online version. So in print and online, Lewis’s Outlook story has too little attribution.

This was Lewis’s first piece for a major media outlet. Veteran journalists, if they had come across Ensmenger’s Web site and book, would have interviewed him and probably quoted him. He is clearly an expert in this field.

I don't think she did anything wrong.  She could have gone a step deeper into her printed version to reflect the links that were in place, and I don't think it would have been wrong to do so.  But she didn't, and I think that choice was made at her discretion and is valid.

Why? Because while she failed to call him by name, she had linked to his work. If he was truly one of many sources, she has the right to draw the line somewhere.  After reading the entire article, I think linking to the source she used rather than the source of the source she used was completely reasonable.  The argument that it is hard to find his work in an old magazine isn't legit, that's how she found it.  The writer for the Post says in his final comments that it wasn't criminal but was sloppy attribution.  I still don't agree.  She quoted the source used and did not try to pass it off as her own insight or knowledge.  A reader who wanted to know more could find the original work easily with the information provided.

There are a few subjects that come from this that I find interesting.  First, is the standard for regular folks different than that for professional journalists?  In a time when any hack with a laptop can blog his merry butt off, where is the line from regular guy to professional?  I also agree that in electronic form linking equates attribution.  The one fault I found was that when it was converted to print anything linked should have been cited.

Once upon a time, there were few sources to look at.  Books, periodicals and people were the sources.  Now one can Google thousands of documents that contain a particular phrase.  The spirit of the law should be upheld, but the law itself needs some clarification and updating.

There is also the responsibility of journalism, and professional ethics.  If she really is guilty of anything, it is misjudgment.  However, I am well versed in expectations and legalities this and I really think "on the fence" is as bad as it gets here.  Meanwhile a rookie's possible mistake may end a career, and I'd hate to see that.