Join 3,514 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


See Something Cite Something
January 13, 2011 4:40 PM   Subscribe

So you found something cool on the Internet... A helpful chart that MeFites totally don't need because the Blue is all about "Found something cool on the web and want to share it with everyone else?" from Loldwell.com (previously) and Rosscott, Inc. (semi-previously) who's doing for symbols in The Noun Project (here) what xkcd did for/to stickmen.
posted by oneswellfoop (23 comments total) 5 users marked this as a favorite

 
via?
posted by empath at 4:44 PM on January 13, 2011 [6 favorites]


For the record, both Caldwell's site and Rosscott's comic are part of my daily websurfing because I like being entertained. So via ME.
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:46 PM on January 13, 2011 [1 favorite]


Is the "FUCK YOU you're killing the internet!" graphic available on a t-shirt? Or, better yet, a polo shirt with the little cat the same size as the Lacoste alligator so that people have to lean in a bit to read the text.
posted by The Card Cheat at 4:46 PM on January 13, 2011 [1 favorite]


DOWN WITH BUZZFEED!
posted by Gator at 4:49 PM on January 13, 2011


It even has a watermark.
posted by cjorgensen at 4:50 PM on January 13, 2011


Scroll down, The Card Cheat, the FYou Kitty is on a t-shirt but the Sharing Is Awesome graphic which WAS going also be on a shirt was withdrawn because they feared it would ironically violate a few trademarks.
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:53 PM on January 13, 2011 [1 favorite]


For the record, both Caldwell's site and Rosscott's comic are part of my daily websurfing because I like being entertained. So via ME.

I was just trying to make sure you weren't killing the internet.
posted by empath at 4:55 PM on January 13, 2011 [1 favorite]


Why am I killing the internet? This comic is miserable about not getting more links. Way to take it out on people. Who names a comic book company Loldwell and Rosscott? Loldwell sounds like an insurance company and Rosscott sounds like a place you would buy a boat from.
posted by parmanparman at 5:01 PM on January 13, 2011


> Scroll down, The Card Cheat

This is good news.
posted by The Card Cheat at 5:09 PM on January 13, 2011


Loldwell sounds like an insurance company

I was genuinely surprised and disappointed that it wasn't photos from Dwell magazine with funny captions.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 5:11 PM on January 13, 2011


and Rosscott sounds like a place you would buy a boat from.

Or wainscoting!
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:25 PM on January 13, 2011


I have a blog and post among other things pictures of girls that I find here and there on the net. I usually do not give a link to the "source' because in most instances the place where I found it is not where that place got it from. In fact, most photos can be found on ten or more sites.

I do give a source however if the source I found the photo at is an originating place, a spot where I know the photographer took pictures of models, as in, say DOMAI. He did the work, he took the photo. He deserves credit.

In courses at college, students are often told to give the source where they got something, even if that source was not the original place where it came from. That way, not only is the student giving credit to his place of finding the material, he is also getting off the hook if something was not done properly in the secondary source (ie, the place where he found it ).
posted by Postroad at 5:29 PM on January 13, 2011


Or wainscoting!

We've been mentioned on MeFi!
posted by Gator at 5:39 PM on January 13, 2011 [3 favorites]


because they feared it would ironically violate a few trademarks.

Ironic trademark infringement. I knew THE MAN was gonna co-opt hipsterdom someday.
posted by cmoj at 6:26 PM on January 13, 2011


"In courses at college, students are often told to give the source where they got something, even if that source was not the original place where it came from."

Somehow I am still shocked at how commonly this must be taught for so many students to learn it.

If you are not citing materiel found in a secondary source it is always better to cite the most primary source you have access to that contains the complete idea you are citing. The order in which you found the ideas is not relevant to the source of them, which is what you are supposed to be providing. The Works Cited/References section is not about the author; it is about the field, for the benefit of the reader. At least in academia proper, citations are so much more than just a way to say that these ideas are not yours, they are a useful (very often the most useful) part of a body of work. I have spent too god damn long moving from review to progressively older and harder to find review in the scientific literature to generally end up at a weak, irrelevant, or non-existent experiment. TOO MANY PEOPLE DON'T DO THIS, OR PRETEND THEY DON'T WHEN INCONVENIENT, AND IT IS A PROBLEM. What you end up with is a game of telephone with the product getting more certain, more grandiose, and more wrong over time.

"That way, not only is the student giving credit to his place of finding the material, he is also getting off the hook if something was not done properly in the secondary source (ie, the place where he found it )."

Fortunately this is correct only if you do not have access to the original source, and it must be cited accordingly. Failure to do so is plagiarism. Besides if someone is not willing to critically evaluate the ideas in a paper they are presenting they should not be writing it. This is why if you cite wikipedia either you or wikipedia have done something very wrong, sometimes its both.

Ideas generally gain or lose contexts and meanings and thus lose validity as they get regurgitated or summarized which is why you should always cite/link to the original source, unless of course you are citing/linking novel ideas related to an original work.
posted by Blasdelb at 7:49 PM on January 13, 2011


I thought the original lacked something... a reference to MetaFilter, so I did this mashup with total ignorance as to the propriety thereof. *chuckle*
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:14 PM on January 13, 2011 [3 favorites]


I thought the original lacked something... a reference to MetaFilter, so I did this mashup...

Give it a half hour and Boing Boing will have their own mash-up too.
posted by robotot at 8:43 PM on January 13, 2011


This is stupid. The Internet doesn't belong to anybody. Maybe such puerile rules might make sense if you're trying to win Reddit or something, but no fucking way is somebody shifting content "killing the Internet." if anything's killing the Internet, it's the idiotic blogger popularity contests that cause people to fume and rage whenever they don't get linked to.
posted by koeselitz at 9:25 PM on January 13, 2011 [3 favorites]


This isn't about people not giving blogs credit for "discovering" images/videos/memes/whatever. It's about actual content creators getting their shit republished without attribution.
posted by ODiV at 9:55 PM on January 13, 2011


Found an unattributed image on the Internet?
www.tineye.com
posted by davel at 9:58 PM on January 13, 2011 [3 favorites]


This isn't about people not giving blogs credit for "discovering" images/videos/memes/whatever. It's about actual content creators getting their shit republished without attribution.

Yeah, this. I don't understand the knicker-twisting over "via" "credit," but I can certainly understand a creator being upset at his or her creation going viral when it's rehosted on Imgur or Tumblr or Buzzfeed where nobody knows who the original artist is. It's true that somebody will often come along in the comments to say, "Hey, here's the original artist's site," but it's often buried at that point and the unattributed Imgur link is the one that continues to make the rounds, which sucks.
posted by Gator at 5:16 AM on January 14, 2011


When I got to the bottom of the graphic, I actually thought "Twitter, Reddit, Stumebleupon... wait, who's that character with the shovel? Ohhh, right."
posted by interrobang at 8:20 AM on January 14, 2011


This is what bugs me about photo/tumblr blogs. Some of them can be really great -- like If Charlie Parker was a Gunslinger, There'd Be a Whole Lot of Dead Copycats. Obviously educated people post gobs of images (on ICPWG..., usually of artists) but often neglect to give a sliver of context beyond name and occasionally place. Hardly ever is the creator's name given, even if it is obvious that the image had a life way before someone scanned it in and popped it onto their tumblr.

Perhaps the point is to present the image-nugget as completely divorced from context as possible, but...why? If someone could point me to any manifestos explaining this treatment of images, I'd be grateful, because as an archivist a lot of this lack of context and source information let alone permission really unnerves me. Isn't citing sources a huge, necessary part of being information literate?
posted by theefixedstars at 8:58 AM on January 14, 2011


« Older The Watson Artificial Intelligence system will tak...  |  Fifty vintage beer cans from D... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments