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 399840
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Be very careful
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 16th Dec 2009 08:12 UTC in reply to "Be very careful"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

Someone from the GNOME Foundation has made a counter claim - that is all you can say. Has this Esfahbod chap offered you incontrovertible proof that the post that led to Lucas Rocha's initial mail was something other than De Icaza's post? Do you have that proof? You may be needing it soon unless you retract your accusations about me.


This is an issue of trust. You provide no proof in your article about the claim - if you had, I'm sure you would've. I trust someone like Esfahbod, that much is true. However - people are free to make up their own minds. That's the whole point: in articles on OSNews, I state my own opinions. My readers are clever enough to agree or disagree with me, to make up their own minds about who to believe - your claim, or one of a noted GNOME developer.

I am free to state that I find Esfahbod's claim trustworthy, just as much as you are free not to.

you plagiarised it. The source was public and I had provided all the links but the proper thing to do was to link to my story, even if you wrote your own. You wanted to be a star.


My story was entirely based on posts made to public sources - in this case, blogs on PGO and emails to the Foundation list, a number of them which had no place in your article at all. You wrote a story based off the same sources - that's what happens. Are you seriously going to argue that if we were to both write about a Steve Jobs keynote, I'd be plagiarising you because you covered the same public content?

On top of that, as explained, my article wasn't supposed to focus around GNOME-GNU at all - but about the second half of my article. I apologise here for not framing that well.

Now someone from GNOME seems to be putting pressure on you and you don't appear to have the guts to stare them down. Or are you trying to suck up to them?


No, I am trying to be as honest as possible. If this story only had 5 comments, I wouldn't have cared. However, this story generated over 300 comments, and this means that it might have had negative consequences not based on actions of GNOME developers or Miguel, but based on MY presentation of it - including the claim about Miguel, which served as a major hot iron in the comments.

Contrary to many other bloggers, I like to be held accountable for my words, so if it turns out that I'm spreading nonsense (other than nonsense opinions of course) that can have negative effects, I'd like to offer apologies and clarify matters. I've done it before, and I'll do it again.

Develop some guts. Else stop calling yourself a journalist. The way you have handled this whole thing shows that you haven't a clue about journalism.


I'm not a journalist, I'm a blogger. On top of that, if "having a clue about journalism" means standing by claims even though you personally believe them to be nonsense, the I'd rather NOT have a clue about journalism.

Edited 2009-12-16 08:13 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3