a refresher on why plagiarism is bad

Posted in the Ed2010 daily newsletter, this article on Slate reminded me of a girl I once worked with. Fresh out of school, she asked me one time, "Why does it matter?" when I pointed out that her copy was nearly an exact duplicate of an article from another magazine, which she had submitted as fact-checking material for her piece. Jack Shafer gives eight reasons why.

great editors: chris anderson, wired

Wired is one of the best and most innovative magazines on the market. If you don't read it, I suggest you take a look, regardless of whether you're interested in the subject matter. Its long-form journalism is exceptional, its service pieces are extremely reader-friendly and it continually breaks ground in subject matter and production innovation (its covers are particularly ingenious). Obviously the strength of the magazine is in a large part due to the editor, Chris Anderson. Noticed this interview with Anderson by Charlie Rose on the Canadian Magazines blog today. They talk about Anderson's cover story in the recent issue (see previous post), but Anderson also has some interesting things to say about magazines in general.

(approx. 22 min)

are big publishers treating professional writers as hobbyists?

A few days ago, I attended a panel discussion put on by the Rotman School of Management's Martin Prosperity Institute at the University of Toronto. Entitled The New Economics of Selling Digital Media Online: How IP [Intellectual Property] Protection Fosters Economic Prosperity, the discussion covered the usual refrains of intellectual property, the right of creators to charge for use of that property, and the lack of enforcement of IP laws in the "Wild West" of the internet. Most of the comments related to the music industry and the difficulties it has had with peer-to-peer networks, including a point made by the Canadian Recording Industry Association's president, Graham Henderson, in his closing remarks. He brought up Chris Anderson's article on the free economy in the March issue of Wired magazine, and took Anderson to task for the following passage from the article:

Some artists give away their music online as a way of marketing concerts, merchandise, licensing, and other paid fare. But others have simply accepted that, for them, music is not a moneymaking business. It's something they do for other reasons, from fun to creative expression. Which, of course, has always been true for most musicians anyway.

Henderson bemoaned the attitude that musicians shouldn't expect to make money at creating music, and that the creative class may increasingly come to be viewed as hobbyists.

It got me thinking. Are publishers treating professional freelance writers as hobbyists? Since writing, both online and in print, is subsidized by advertising, and readers already expect to get content for free or nearly free, it could be argued that the assault on freelance writing income comes not from those who consume it, but from publishers who are asking for more rights for less money. There are even those who expect writers to produce well-conceived copy for free. My question is, are publishers relying on the for-the-love-of-it drive in writers, and in turn revealing their disrespect for the profession – or perhaps "hobby" – of writing? Are publishers turning professional writers into hobbyists?

do you wiki?

Just read this article on the American Journalism Review site about the veracity of Wikipedia. I've always believed that you just can't trust the user-generated online encyclopedia enough for it to be a primary source, but agree with David Cay Johnston, a New York Times reporter, who is quoted in the article as saying, "As a tip sheet, as a road map to reliable sources, Wikipedia seems valuable." What do you think? Do you use Wikipedia for research, and if you do, in what way?