Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 16th Dec 2009 00:13 UTC
Gnome In the item we ran yesterday about GNOME and the GNU Project, one aspect got snowed under a little bit. It turns out a claim made in the iTWire article about the role a blog post by Miguel De Icaza was false, and even though the claim wasn't ours, I did repeat it, and therefore, should correct it too. I also need to offer apologies for not framing the opening of the article clear enough - had I framed it better, a lot of pointless discussion and name-calling could've been avoided.
Permalink for comment 399822
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

wrote your own, you wouldn't be having this problem. Almost all of your "Read More" content is merely a copied and restated article of the article to which you are linking to.

If it makes you feel smarter to plagiarize other people's ideas so that you can say, "I wrote an article one time about..." so that you can feel informed and say wrote an article, by all means, go ahead continue. But don't get any glorious ideas about those articles being any different than the article which you got caught red-handed copying from. If it turned out that ITWire was correct about what they said, I'm damn sure you wouldn't refer to what you wrote as "their claim", but instead refer to it as: "OSNews ran a story on this a few days ago".

So if you're going to continue to rip content off other sites by just restating everything they wrote, get used to saying "even though the claim wasn't ours, I did repeat it" even when the end result isn't a positive one. Because really, that is all your doing.


And I really love this one:

"None of the companies involved was available for comment, so we don't know if this is really the end of it all."

You make it sound as if you attempted to contact them. But, yet, of course, that too was taken from the article: "All parties to the negotiations — Microsoft; Google; Mozilla, which makes the Firefox browser; and Opera, which filed the initial complaint that led to the commission’s investigation and ruling — declined to comment."

Edited 2009-12-16 06:27 UTC

Reply Score: -1