Join 3,414 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)

Tags:

render unto reddit
October 1, 2010 7:00 PM   Subscribe

reddit is a great site and a great community - and it provides a ton of FPP content to metafilter - which is also a great site with a great community. When we create an fpp sourced from reddit can we acknowledge the source as in [via]? Sure, if the post was created independently of reddit, then no issue,but if you did grab the slyt from reddit then it would be nice if you attributed accordingly.
posted by the noob to Etiquette/Policy at 7:00 PM (111 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

alright then.
posted by kuujjuarapik at 7:01 PM on October 1, 2010


http://faq.metafilter.com/#69
posted by John Cohen at 7:02 PM on October 1, 2010


I disagree
posted by found missing at 7:02 PM on October 1, 2010


because....?
posted by batmonkey at 7:05 PM on October 1, 2010


http://faq.metafilter.com/#69

Many people do this as a courtesy.
posted by the noob at 7:06 PM on October 1, 2010


It goes both ways. The other day there was a hugely popular question on Reddit about "What things have you realized you have been doing improperly." It was an almost verbatim rip of the Ask question with no attribution except some bitching in the comments. I think it would be nice to do what you are saying if the FPP is basically just a repost from reddit; but what I am really trying to point out is that it's not a one way thing, and in fact, this whole process of things making the rounds is just basically how the internet works these days.
posted by milarepa at 7:07 PM on October 1, 2010


via links are one of those things that are nice but not required. People find thngs a bunch of places and it's damned difficult to prove where anyone got something, though it seems to be fun for some folks to include [via] links for others' posts in a "I know where you got this" sort of way. There's nothing wrong with a via link to reddit. There's nothing wrong with not including one, either.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:07 PM on October 1, 2010 [3 favorites]


If someone creates a post that they did in fact source from reddit and they want to include that in a via, they are welcome to do so. They are not required to do so.

If they create a post that contains a link that they found somewhere other than reddit, but which also happened to get attention from reddit, there is zero reason for them to even know it was on reddit.

So, basically, a via is a nice courtesy but a missing via is not a problem and much of the time it's a mistake to even think that there's such a thing as a missing via. I'd say we've actually had far more annoyances from people piping up in threads to complain mistakenly about via-neglect than we've had from posts where attribution was somehow conspicuously absent.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:08 PM on October 1, 2010


The day reddit actually generates some content I link to I'll give it a via.
posted by BeerFilter at 7:10 PM on October 1, 2010 [7 favorites]


I was hoping someone would repost the reddit link about that guy who turned out to not be so tired of his lady. [via]
posted by mintcake! at 7:10 PM on October 1, 2010


And I don't want to give you an overly hard time about this, the noob, but as far as this goes starting a metatalk thread to broach the subject is an okay thing to do but you really need to stop bringing it up in actual threads on the blue.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:15 PM on October 1, 2010


Yeah cortex, I agree that this is the forum. But there are so many fpps sourced from reddit- and obviously so as they appear on the blue within hours or a day from the original reddit posting. - it is a courtesy issue - and besides, reddit for years joked (and pointedly) that digg sourced most of it's material from reddit.
posted by the noob at 7:22 PM on October 1, 2010


it is a courtesy issue

Again, stuff zips from reddit to any number of places on the internet fairly quickly, any one of which could be the place that someone saw it.

If you think someone specifically is getting all their FPP material from reddit, fine, but hassling people who may or may not have gotten their links from reddit as if they got their links from reddit and didn't include a via link is sort of not okay. You may have a strong feeling that people should be courteous and I sympathize [I really really do] but I think you're making a few leaps here and thinking it's only one.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:25 PM on October 1, 2010


But there are so many fpps sourced from reddit- and obviously so as they appear on the blue within hours or a day from the original reddit posting.

That's not how the Internet works.
posted by kmz at 7:27 PM on October 1, 2010 [20 favorites]


So, mods, how's Friday treating you?
posted by batmonkey at 7:29 PM on October 1, 2010 [3 favorites]


Maybe one of you can take Friday night off. Is it necessary to double-team a MeTa, the answer for which is in the FAQ?
posted by found missing at 7:31 PM on October 1, 2010


But there are so many fpps sourced from reddit- and obviously so as they appear on the blue within hours or a day from the original reddit posting.

Um, not to get all fighty, but - prove it? I mean, can you prove that people who make fpps that contain links that have also appeared on reddit found them on reddit, and not twitter tumblr facebook dropped by birds down the chimney etc.?

and obviously so as they appear on the blue within hours or a day from the original reddit posting

This is really not as obvious as you think it is. A lot of us don't read reddit. It is not the only place where links get shared.
posted by rtha at 7:33 PM on October 1, 2010 [1 favorite]


it would be nice if you attributed accordingly. -- I can't help but feel like there's some sort of ulterior motive for this request. Why do you care?
posted by crunchland at 7:37 PM on October 1, 2010


Um, not to get all fighty...

Oh the hell with that, I'm going to get fighty. FIGHTY WITH LOVE.

(((((((((((internets))))))))))))
posted by nomadicink at 7:38 PM on October 1, 2010


The site that gets attribution should be the site that creates the content.
posted by Doublewhiskeycokenoice at 7:38 PM on October 1, 2010 [24 favorites]


I would like to see Reddit challenge Metafilter to a duel. (With Digg and BoingBoing as seconds, of course.)
posted by scody at 7:38 PM on October 1, 2010


I would like to see Reddit challenge Metafilter to a duel

NONONONONONO.

Baseball teams!
posted by nomadicink at 7:40 PM on October 1, 2010 [1 favorite]


yahtzee
posted by found missing at 7:40 PM on October 1, 2010 [1 favorite]


Yes, I watch South Park.
posted by found missing at 7:41 PM on October 1, 2010


Dodgeball.

"I'll give you a [via]!"
posted by carsonb at 7:41 PM on October 1, 2010 [1 favorite]


I think each poster should touch his/her heart and point up to god while running the bases.
posted by found missing at 7:42 PM on October 1, 2010


I would like to see Reddit challenge Metafilter to a duel.

Or... a dance-off!
posted by amyms at 7:46 PM on October 1, 2010 [1 favorite]


oh oh, Reddit's been served!
posted by found missing at 7:46 PM on October 1, 2010 [1 favorite]


Beautiful Agony video!
posted by nomadicink at 7:47 PM on October 1, 2010 [3 favorites]


That would be unfair, given the expertise here.
posted by found missing at 7:48 PM on October 1, 2010 [1 favorite]


I'm guessing that this all has to do with breaking away from a certain inferiority complex that Reddit seems to have.

"Reddit got almost 300 million pageviews in July, compared to the 200 million Digg views in July that Digg founder Kevin Rose reported on his blog. So says an infographic posted on Reddit by Chris Slowe, the site's lead developer, who also asks why the media continually call Reddit "tiny" and "dwarfed" by Digg. What's more, traffic at Reddit, according to their Google Analytics, is up 24% in the last two months." (source)
posted by crunchland at 7:50 PM on October 1, 2010


The OP's name does what it says on the tin.
posted by Splunge at 7:55 PM on October 1, 2010 [1 favorite]


BeerFilter : The day reddit actually generates some content I link to I'll give it a via.

This.

"Credit" belongs with the content creator, not with a link aggregation site that the FPP just happened to most recently come from.

I find few "quirks" of the internet more annoying than reading something really interesting and trying to click back through to the original story, only to end up in blog-link-mutual-masturbation hell. I will never understand why people feel the need to link to another blog, but never something so useful as a frickin' PRIMARY SOURCE.
posted by pla at 8:19 PM on October 1, 2010 [15 favorites]


it provides a ton of FPP content to metafilter

Look, I spend a heck of a lot of time on both sites, but to suggest that because it showed up on reddit first that the person on MetaFilter who made the post must have seen it on reddit is pathetically wrong. Links spread in innumerable ways: link aggregation sites, instant messages, blog posts, blog comments, IRC, forums, shoutboxes, facebook, twitter, email, mailing lists, text messages, real life conversations, etc. There's a very good chance that the poster you you think is ripping stuff from reddit has never even heard of that site.
posted by Rhomboid at 8:33 PM on October 1, 2010 [3 favorites]


Any chance reddit users can give some credit instead mirroring everything to imgur (including things like forum posts as screenshots) so that the content creators gain no benefit from their creation?
posted by markr at 8:38 PM on October 1, 2010 [7 favorites]


THE SOURCE? You're a fan of Charmed too? (I hate that Rose McGowan. If she purses her lips and rolls her eyes one more time I swear I'll scream).
posted by vapidave at 8:41 PM on October 1, 2010


Does Reddit need the links or something?
posted by chunking express at 8:43 PM on October 1, 2010 [1 favorite]


Oh and just for the record, reddit creates a tremendous amount of original content: comics, drawings, photos, comment threads. To suggest that reddit doesn't produce anything is sheer ignorance. However, most of that kind of thing doesn't reach MetaFilter because a single amusing FFFFFUUUUUU comic would not a good post. But there have been times where reddit content has been the subject of posts here such as the robot pony bike or sad Keanu.
posted by Rhomboid at 8:43 PM on October 1, 2010 [1 favorite]


Does reddit do [via]s too? Can we get a recursive [via] loop going with them? Clicking on the [via] links would send us in a never-ending circle. In it's own little way, it would be kind of emblematic of this conversation.
posted by .kobayashi. at 8:43 PM on October 1, 2010


I never read reddit.

And stop talking about my Mom.
posted by marxchivist at 8:44 PM on October 1, 2010


Amen, pla.

Besides, where does it end? If reddit gets a [via], does my LISTSERV get a [via] when I repost something from there? How about a museum news aggregator? My college alumni website? The New York Times? Facebook? Arts & Letters Daily? CNN.com? I think the only time a via makes any sense is when there's something about the path itself, or the original source, that merits attention in the context of the post content.

I like posts to be about content, and usually am not that interested in the intermediary steps the content took as it wound its way through internet Candyland between its creator and original publisher and MetaFilter, another selective aggregator. Every now and then I'll want to introduce people to the richness and glory of MeFi and I'll [via] something I've found there in hopes they'll click through and become addicted, but that's definitely more about my subversive desire to recruit and less about the post content. I certainly don't think it should be a requirement.
posted by Miko at 8:54 PM on October 1, 2010 [4 favorites]


I usually include a via link if the site I grabbed the link from is obscure and interesting in its own right. Otherwise, what's the point? Mefi posts don't need bibliographies.
posted by chunking express at 8:56 PM on October 1, 2010 [1 favorite]


Does reddit do [via]s too?

The thing that's really awkward about reddit is that the system only allows two kinds of posts: a single link with a headline containing no markup, or a 'self' post that has no main link and when clicked on leads directly to a comment thread, but can contain a full bodied post by the submitter with any allowable markup. So for example if you wanted to link to a series of three photos you're kind of screwed. You can make a 'self' post that contains links to all the photos in the writeup, but you won't get quite as good a response because people are lazy by nature and they really like the instant gratification of an item labeled [pic] that takes them right to a picture, instead of a self post. (Non-self posts also have the advantage of having a thumbnail on the site as well as awarding link karma.) Or you can just link to the first picture and then list the rest in a comment. For the specific case of images there's kind of a workaround in that imgur lets you create galleries, but that doesn't work for anything else, such as providing a [via] link.

Anyway, that's why hardly anything on reddit is attributed. I think if they changed their code to allow a textual post without making a self post you'd see a lot more attribution.
posted by Rhomboid at 9:00 PM on October 1, 2010 [1 favorite]


http://faq.metafilter.com/#69

Many people do this as a courtesy.


I know. What's your point?
posted by John Cohen at 9:01 PM on October 1, 2010


case study:

I posted something today that loquacious told me about, which I mentioned in the post. But apparently it was also on reddit as someone then pointed out in the thread. I've never even been to reddit.
posted by LobsterMitten at 9:13 PM on October 1, 2010


Besides, everyone knows all the links on Metafilter come from boingboing.
posted by crunchland at 9:19 PM on October 1, 2010


Any chance reddit users can give some credit instead mirroring everything to imgur (including things like forum posts as screenshots) so that the content creators gain no benefit from their creation?

Usually it's only 4chan and facebook posts that get hosted on imgur, because you can't link directly to them. Also, images get rehosted there because it's the only image host that doesn't choke and die when it hits the front page of reddit.
posted by empath at 9:30 PM on October 1, 2010


Some people have a sense that there should be a via attribution, because it seems that it's in the same family relationship as taking credit for someone else's work in bringing a particular benefit to the larger community. The mistake, of course, is that you don't always get credit in life for pointing to something, but for making it. Taking original content as your own is inappropriate. But insisting on an attribution for finding someone's original content is not the same thing, and it would not be right to lump it in with intellectual property concerns; so it's worth making this distinction clear. The internet works by linking a lot of original content together so it's more easy to access. Everyone doesn't automatically get a pat on the back for doing what the internet is, by definition, designed to do. That being said though, there's nothing wrong with doing it. When one of my buddies has a great idea to go to a certain restaurant, it certainly is a courtesy to say, Hey, yeah, this was Jim's idea! Didn't he find a great place? But then if Jim recommends a restaurant to me for a separate family gathering, and then I get together there with my family based on his recommendation, it's not a necessary courtesy to explain where I found it.
posted by SpacemanStix at 9:31 PM on October 1, 2010 [2 favorites]


I can't help but feel like there's some sort of ulterior motive for this request. Why do you care?

I own reddit
posted by the noob at 9:32 PM on October 1, 2010 [2 favorites]


I only post to mefi when I find good stuff on Stormfront.

YMMV
posted by bardic at 10:10 PM on October 1, 2010 [1 favorite]


Why are you assuming you know when someone discovered something on reddit? Just because it was there "first" (ok, not even really that because it's just a link) doesn't mean the person saw it. Alternately, they could be incredibly slow typers and have been working on the post for way longer than it's been up on reddit. Acting like it's possible to tell is just ... it's weird. Just because you saw it on reddit doesn't mean anything about the person making the post. Ass u me, that whole bit.
posted by stoneweaver at 10:17 PM on October 1, 2010


>I can't help but feel like there's some sort of ulterior motive for this request. Why do you care?

I own reddit


WRONG ANSWER
posted by KokuRyu at 10:27 PM on October 1, 2010 [1 favorite]


Hey noob, I don't think the internet works the way you think it does. It's a SERIES of tubes, not just one big tube that redditors dictate the contents of.

And courtesy!? Oh... man, you made me laugh with that one.
posted by sunshinesky at 10:45 PM on October 1, 2010


That's not how the Internet works.
posted by kmz at 10:27 PM on October 1 [8 favorites +] [!]


oh shit, I missed that. Perhaps I shold have said [via]? You know, because obviously I have no mind of my own, and must have stolen that thought from kmz because [s]he said it first.

but I digress...
posted by sunshinesky at 10:48 PM on October 1, 2010


Did anyone ever see a the reddit comment about Metafilter, which was essentially, "yeah, metafilter is like reddit, except when you make a post there it's like writing a dissertation"?

FWIW, I've tried posting (in appropriate threads) some of my highly-favorited comments here, there. Except for a few counter-examples, they always get fewer up-votes there than favorites here. Make of that what you will.
posted by orthogonality at 11:35 PM on October 1, 2010


the noob writes "Yeah cortex, I agree that this is the forum. But there are so many fpps sourced from reddit- and obviously so as they appear on the blue within hours or a day from the original reddit posting."

You've got to get out more; there are more than just a couple of link aggregators out there.

vapidave writes "(I hate that Rose McGowan. If she purses her lips and rolls her eyes one more time I swear I'll scream)."

Bite your fingers.

LobsterMitten writes "I posted something today that loquacious told me about, which I mentioned in the post. But apparently it was also on reddit as someone then pointed out in the thread. I've never even been to reddit."

That Viaing for the OP is starting to get really annoying. Mods any chance of it becoming an automatic delete when flagged?
posted by Mitheral at 12:15 AM on October 2, 2010


nomadicink: Baseball teams!

No, kickball! Drunken kickball! Drunken kickball in costumes! I say we should be circus-themed. We'd have a shortstop on stilts, a pantomime lion catcher, clowns in the outfield, and we'd be fucking unstoppable. UNSTOPPABLE! Reddit could be whatever they wanted to be, Star Trek or the Khmer Rouge (Khickmore Rouge?) or Ikea furniture or something. The point is, it'll be great and there'll be booze and a woozy, fally-overy guy on stilts. It'll be the best thing ever. BESTEVER!
posted by Kattullus at 12:58 AM on October 2, 2010 [2 favorites]


Why are you assuming you know when someone discovered something on reddit? Just because it was there "first" (ok, not even really that because it's just a link) doesn't mean the person saw it. Alternately, they could be incredibly slow typers and have been working on the post for way longer than it's been up on reddit. Acting like it's possible to tell is just ... it's weird. Just because you saw it on reddit doesn't mean anything about the person making the post. Ass u me, that whole bit.


I'm not assuming, an honour system, there is no way of proving - and proving isn't the point. If you was it on reddit and post it on meta filter- just attribute the source. Makes the the concept of "meta" richer as the reader can dive over to the other site and read comments there - that's all.

The majority of posts are slyt - as with the kid and his 24 accents, so there is not so much slow typing and more ctrl+c/ctrl+v
posted by the noob at 1:21 AM on October 2, 2010


How many ways do people have to say No before you give up on this fool's quest? What you want largely ain't gonna happen.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:39 AM on October 2, 2010


INTERNETS LINKERY: SERIOUS BUSINESS

[via]'s are always good practice, that said, when the [via] link goes to some person's blog or something. To an aggregator or linkodile? Not so much. Or not at all, really.

Also, reddit is ugly as sun-hammered dogshit from crotch to sternum and so easily handwaved into far farkistan, not to be taken seriously until. Deal with it, BRO.

Also, also: welcome to internet!

posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:39 AM on October 2, 2010 [1 favorite]


just attribute the source

You don't seem to be comprehending that the source is not necessarily reddit.
posted by Rhomboid at 2:59 AM on October 2, 2010


You don't seem to be comprehending that the source is not necessarily reddit.

aaaand, you don't seem to be picking up that IF the source IS reddit then attribute it.
posted by the noob at 3:36 AM on October 2, 2010


I love this so much I can't even find a way to be sarcastic.

SOLDIER ON THE NOOB, SOLDIER ON FOR INTERNET JUSTICE!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:42 AM on October 2, 2010 [4 favorites]


Eh. Doesn't seem that important. All I know is that every single day I see stuff on MeFi that I've already seen and read on reddit. I deal with this by just not bothering with those MeFi links and only looking at the comments if I think there's likely to be some interesting new insights or opinions about the links. Or, you know, fighting and stuff. :-)
posted by Decani at 3:43 AM on October 2, 2010


If you was it on reddit and post it on meta filter- just attribute the source.

No.

Attribution is optional, regardless of the source. Look at the front page and count how many attributions you see.

And if this Reddit you're talking about is this:
"Reddit (stylized as reddit; pronounced /ˈrɛdɪt/, "red it") is a social news website, owned by Condé Nast Digital, a subsidiary of Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. "
then I don't think poor little Reddit needs our help or your evangelism.
posted by pracowity at 3:44 AM on October 2, 2010 [4 favorites]


Let's all just agree not to go to reddit. Then, we can't find links from there. Problem solved.
posted by crunchland at 3:53 AM on October 2, 2010 [4 favorites]


All these sites are yours, except Reddit. Attempt no linkings there.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:04 AM on October 2, 2010 [3 favorites]


It goes both ways. The other day there was a hugely popular question on Reddit about "What things have you realized you have been doing improperly." It was an almost verbatim rip of the Ask question with no attribution except some bitching in the comments. I think it would be nice to do what you are saying if the FPP is basically just a repost from reddit; but what I am really trying to point out is that it's not a one way thing, and in fact, this whole process of things making the rounds is just basically how the internet works these days.
posted by milarepa at 9:07 PM on October 1 [+] [!]


Sorry milarepa, but that question had been asked on AskReddit more than once prior to its appearance on AskMe.

(As an aside, AskReddit is specifically for chatty questions. It's in their guidelines. /r/answers is specifically not for chatty questions. For metafilter members that came from reddit: questions on AskMetafilter are supposed to be much more like r/answers questions, except there are also questions on AskMetafilter about relationships, and it's tricky to tell for those which will be accepted and which will not. AskMetafilter is more heavily moderated than anything else on either Metafilter or reddit, which is a very good thing in the end.)
posted by Jpfed at 5:20 AM on October 2, 2010


the noob: even if the source is Reddit, there's no requirement for siting it. I think that it would be good practice, however, to cite a page if you used a significant block of text from that page to frame your link. But really, citations are completely optional on Metafilter.
posted by fermezporte at 6:40 AM on October 2, 2010


aaaand, you don't seem to be picking up that IF the source IS reddit then attribute it.

Some people will do this (sometimes, anyway) and most people won't. That's the best you're going to get. If only total compliance will make you happy, you're SOL.
posted by rtha at 6:49 AM on October 2, 2010


Let's all just agree not to go to reddit. Then, we can't find links from there.

This is how I do it.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:31 AM on October 2, 2010 [6 favorites]


That Viaing for the OP is starting to get really annoying. Mods any chance of it becoming an automatic delete when flagged?

Feel free to flag them when you see them; it's not really an auto-delete sort of situation but we'll definitely take a look. I've certainly deleted some in the past. If we never see it we can't make a decision about it, though.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:46 AM on October 2, 2010


I'm not a big via person. The case that I did it was pretty obvious, because it was on the front page of reddit just a couple of hours before, and it was a link to an 8 year old article, so not exactly a fresh meme that could have been everywhere.
posted by empath at 7:53 AM on October 2, 2010


cortex : Feel free to flag them when you see them; it's not really an auto-delete sort of situation but we'll definitely take a look. I've certainly deleted some in the past. If we never see it we can't make a decision about it, though.

Seriously?

Perhaps you "fix" them too quickly and I haven't seen any that look all that annoying, but I don't get how a link-back in the comments commits a deletion-worthy sin. If anything, I would think that the possibility of it happening keeps people honest (ie, if you bulk cut-and-paste the FP text straight from another aggregator site, you know you'll probably get caught).


the noob : aaaand, you don't seem to be picking up that IF the source IS reddit then attribute it.

If an FP has Reddit as an actual source, it wouldn't need a "via" because it would necessarily have a direct link. You have mentioned SLYT posts more than once now - Do you mean that a Reddit user has created the content in question (or Reddit has directly sponsored thay creation), hosted it on YouTube, and made the official announcement of its existence on Reddit? Because otherwise, you don't really have much reason to claim Reddit as the source; You'd have YouTube as the source, or more accurately, some random person who chose to use YouTube as a video hosting site.
posted by pla at 8:07 AM on October 2, 2010 [1 favorite]


not exactly a fresh meme that could have been everywhere.

And yet it probably was everywhere, because the Internet is circlejerk-y as fuck. It's not uncommon at all for 5 year old content to pop up on a popular blog or link aggregator and get linked fairly quickly in a hundred different places.
posted by graventy at 8:07 AM on October 2, 2010 [1 favorite]


Remember that post I made about Weirdo Toys? That's on Reddit. But I didn't put the via to Reddit. You know why?

Because I didn't fucking find it on Reddit.

And therein lies the problem noob. I didn't see it at Reddit. I learned about it from a friend while we were both at a different friend's house eating waffles. Prove otherwise.
posted by theichibun at 8:13 AM on October 2, 2010 [1 favorite]


I don't get how a link-back in the comments commits a deletion-worthy sin

When we have seen this sort of thing it's usually an early snarky comment with a via link. This presupposes

- that the commenter knows where the OP got the link from
- that it's de rigeur to cite this sort of thing
- since the OP didn't do this, the commenter is going to snarkily FTFY

The FTFY stuff is annoying, and this is a variant on that.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:16 AM on October 2, 2010 [2 favorites]


I don't think I've ever seen a via on /r.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:17 AM on October 2, 2010 [1 favorite]


Perhaps you "fix" them too quickly and I haven't seen any that look all that annoying, but I don't get how a link-back in the comments commits a deletion-worthy sin.

Let me be clear: the poster offering a via link, whether in their post or in a followup comment: totally, totally fine. Nice of them to do it (except in the rare couple of cases where it's been more like "via MY BEST FRIEND'S BLOG"). Not mandatory at all. Their call.

The objectionable thing is someone else speculatively volunteering a via link. On occasion this makes sense, if there's a really unambiguously clear reason why the via is definitely sourced to that other place and there's some sort of actual credit due beyond It Is A Link Aggregation Site.

Most of the time, it's just someone who reads the other site pretending for god know's what reason that they're a psychic detective who knows where the poster got it. Which, no.

So, yes, what I'm talking about the annoying stuff. The stuff that reads less "here is some helpful extra context" than "fixed that for you, thief". It's an obnoxious failure by some secondhand viameister to realize that their precise reading habits and set of experiences on the internet is not universal. It amounts to a backhanded insult. It's crap behavior.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:21 AM on October 2, 2010 [3 favorites]


Most of the time, it's just someone who reads the other site pretending for god know's what reason that they're a psychic detective who knows where the poster got it. Which, no.

Once I made a FPP to Metafilter, and the first commend was something like "Seriously, dude? You just took a front-page post from Boingboing and copied it to Metafilter?"

Which was funny, because I never used to read boingboing (I now check it maybe once every two weeks). A friend had sent me the link in an email. I don't know where he got it.

After I'd been accused, I checked Boingboing and saw that while I'd linked to the same page they did, that was the only similarity. They had written a whole article about the link. I just posted the link and a short sentence about it.

What blows my mind is that, on this huge Internet, where links and memes spread in all directions, someone happened to read my post and the Boingboing post and "know" that I'd cribbed mine from Boingboing.

Sometimes dingos really DO eat babies.
posted by grumblebee at 8:50 AM on October 2, 2010


It'll be difficult to continue never, ever going to reddit just to make you happy, noob, but I suppose I'll soldier on somehow.
posted by Kwine at 9:14 AM on October 2, 2010 [1 favorite]


I don't go to reddit, digg, slashdot, fark, or boingboing. I do read daringfireball, since Gruber seems to read those sites and link to the things I would be interested in. If it's on daringfireball I won't bring it here, since I make the assumption that everyone will have seen it by now.

I've done the via? in a post exactly once, and was told, "Nope. I don't read df."

From now on though all my vias will link to google.
posted by cjorgensen at 9:22 AM on October 2, 2010


aaaand, you don't seem to be picking up that IF the source IS reddit then attribute it.

the noob, if this is how you feel about reddit, then you'll really need to start giving credit to google, as well, if you use their aggregate results for finding something interesting. They have THOUSANDS Of people slaving away to make sure that you can find relevant links to interesting and informative sites. And that's their livelihood, not a hobby!
posted by SpacemanStix at 10:12 AM on October 2, 2010 [1 favorite]


If this were SomethingAwful, we could pitch in a few bucks to give the noob a custom title that said "I AM A SECONDHAND VIAMEISTER WHO OWNS REDDIT."
posted by AkzidenzGrotesk at 10:14 AM on October 2, 2010 [1 favorite]


How far should we take this?
Should we put links to everywhere that similar content appears on the web. I get that each place will tell a 'story' slightly differently, but why reddit specifically?

Like, slashdot (ugliest site ever, could never read their content without "Alterslash.org") will tell the story of giant Penguin fossils in a more 'meta' manner, incorporating several links to several sources, than a discovery blog, which will likely be slightly different from how it was told in the original research, and then the BBC will focus on different aspects, perhaps highlighting The bird, named Inkayacu paracasensis, or water king, lived during the late Eocene period and had a long, straight beak, much longer than that of its modern relatives.
But the BBC doesn't link to the website of the researchers... only the paper abstract, and far as I can tell, no one is linking to the Jackson School of Geoscience, who actually have videos and images of the fossil (rather than just the 'artists rendering' of the water king)

My point? Large scale global media publishing companies don't fall all over themselves giving "credit" to everyone... they just tell the story in a way that they like... but they didn't create the content, nor "discover" it.
Ohhh, this is about SLYOUTUBEs...
posted by infinite intimation at 10:28 AM on October 2, 2010 [2 favorites]


pla writes "Perhaps you 'fix' them too quickly and I haven't seen any that look all that annoying, but I don't get how a link-back in the comments commits a deletion-worthy sin. If anything, I would think that the possibility of it happening keeps people honest (ie, if you bulk cut-and-paste the FP text straight from another aggregator site, you know you'll probably get caught)."

It doesn't keep people honest. The assumption that they were being dishonest in the first place just because you saw it on Reddit first is what is annoying. If my grandmother sends me a link via twitter and I post it here, even if she got it from Reddit, then as far as I'm concerned the post isn't via Reddit. Saying it is is putting words in my fingers that aren't actually true. And ya, it pisses people off when you imply they are being dishonest when a) you don't have anything but suspicions and especially b) it isn't true.

Plus everything cortex and jessamyn said.

Now if one thinks the Reddit discussion is interesting then linking to it would be fine as long as the link text was something like "Good discussion on Reddit" rather than "Reddit was talking about this first you plagiarizing #$#@#@!"
posted by Mitheral at 10:35 AM on October 2, 2010


Sometimes dingos really DO eat babies.
Via?
Via?
Via?
Via?
Via?
Come on Zarq... Spill the beans!
posted by infinite intimation at 10:38 AM on October 2, 2010


uh, sorry Zarq, that should be ... Spill the beans grumblebee!
posted by infinite intimation at 10:41 AM on October 2, 2010


Mitheral : The assumption that they were being dishonest in the first place just because you saw it on Reddit first is what is annoying.

Call me crazy, but I consider stealing someone else's words dishonest.

If you rewrite it in your own words, cool, no-harm-no-foul. But even as a zealous opponent of modern IP law, I still have to call blatant plagiarism out as nothing short of intellectual fraud.


Now if one thinks the Reddit discussion is interesting then linking to it would be fine as long as the link text was something like "Good discussion on Reddit" rather than "Reddit was talking about this first you plagiarizing #$#@#@!"

When I say plagiarism, I mean plagiarism. I don't mean "found it there and wrote a new summary". I don't even mean paraphrasing or posting a 90% block-quoted snippet from the actual content, both of which fall into a grey area. I mean "stole, word for word, someone else's work with no attribution".

Short of that, we have no disagreement; re-read my first post in this thread.

As for what Jess and Cortex said, I appreciate that such posts could easily sound quite snarky; At the same time, whether or not the poster correctly divines where the FPP actually came from, if the FP and the "via" have identical text, the one dated later deserves a call-out. Nothing to do with content, everything to do with honesty. Perhaps it would go over better to ask, "Cite please?", than making an assumption with a "via"?
posted by pla at 11:01 AM on October 2, 2010


Call me crazy, but I consider stealing someone else's words dishonest.

The disconnect for me here is that we don't really have an ongoing problem of "user takes the post text wholesale from another site-that-links-to-others'-content without giving the site they lifted that text from any attribution in the form of either a direct link to what they're quoting from or a via or other explicit attribution of the source".

I agree that that'd be obnoxious. But that's a weird, weird outlier, not something that happens here with any kind of frequency, and wasn't what the noob was talking about with this post either as far as I can tell, so much as the vague unsubstantiated notion that people are constantly making a direct leap from "saw on reddit" to "posted on mefi" but refusing to provide credit. Which, as we've talked about, isn't something that it's actually all that reasonable to assume barring very specific and unusual circumstances.

You see someone doing something unambiguously sketchy, flag or let us know or maybe, maybe say something in the thread if you're positive that doing so isn't going to potentially cause more problems than it solves. The rest of the time, volunteering a "via" for the poster without some really clear context for why is generally just annoying.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:12 AM on October 2, 2010


I would like to see Reddit challenge Metafilter to a duel.

Spartan wrestling.
posted by homunculus at 12:46 PM on October 2, 2010


empath: "I'm not a big via person. The case that I did it was pretty obvious, because it was on the front page of reddit just a couple of hours before, and it was a link to an 8 year old article, so not exactly a fresh meme that could have been everywhere"

So even though LobsterMitten said in her post where she had gotten the links, naming a specific person, and acknowledged that they'd been around for a while, you thought she was, what? lying? leaving out relevant information? What was this adding to the discussion?
posted by gingerbeer at 1:43 PM on October 2, 2010 [3 favorites]


Spill the beans grumblebee!

I don't remember when I first heard about Lindy Chamberlain. I suspect it was when the case was first in the news. I'm pretty sure I knew about it before the Merl Streep movie.

A few years after it happened, I was living in London and one of my roommates was an Australian girl. She DEFENDED the way people treated Chamberlain, saying it was Chamberlain's own fault for not showing how upset she was when her baby got killed. Even knowing that the poor woman had been falsely accused, my roommate felt perfectly okay with the way everyone had judged her.

And she INSISTED that if I'd been living in Australia at the time, that I'd have judged her the same way -- that weighing evidence was for suckers and weirdos and that normal people go by gut instinct and mob mentality.

It was one of the scariest conversations I'd ever had.

This was Olivia Newton-John's niece, by the way. I didn't know that until I'd lived with her for a while. She referred to her last name as N.J., because "I don't want special favors because I'm related to a famous person."

She thought she'd get special favors because she was Olivia Newton-John's niece? SERIOUSLY? Wow!
posted by grumblebee at 2:22 PM on October 2, 2010


That was the best response to an mock interrogation I have seen. EVER. Seriously. Thanks grumblebee.

I am considering asking "Via?" more often and in more seriousness!
More seriously, Lindy Chamberlain-Creighton's appeal, and letter to the Crown to change the death certificate from this August is extremely moving.
I thank God that the crown eyewitnesses in my case did have backbones as did quite a few ordinary Australians who were willing to stand up and say "hey I don't know what happened but something is not right here and we need all the facts" which paved the way for new legislation allowing for royal commissions in Australia now. This allows for all of the evidence, rumours, tip-offs and questions to be exhaustibly investigated. The commissioner in our case was asked to find our guilt or innocence. Although we argued otherwise, he did not feel he had been given the power to rule on whether cause of death was a dingo or not so did not rule on that. Despite that (the Crown always claimed that it was either me or a dingo), Moreling in his finding said we would be guilty "íf, in spite of so many considerations pointing to their innocence, the conclusion was reached that it had been proved beyond reasonable doubt that a dingo did not take the baby. In the light of all the evidence before the Commission, I am of the opinion that such a conclusion cannot be reached."
posted by infinite intimation at 2:36 PM on October 2, 2010


So even though LobsterMitten said in her post where she had gotten the links, naming a specific person, and acknowledged that they'd been around for a while, you thought she was, what? lying? leaving out relevant information? What was this adding to the discussion?

Firstly, loquacious is a reddit fan, so I'm about 1000% sure he got the link from there.

Secondly, it was adding a link to the several hundred comment long thread on reddit where many interesting things had already been said about the content in question.

Thirdly, pointing out that the content probably came from another link aggregator is not a slight on the poster. I get about half my links from link aggregators, myself. I only point it out when the conversation over there was worth linking to.
posted by empath at 3:24 PM on October 2, 2010


Firstly, loquacious is a reddit fan, so I'm about 1000% sure he got the link from there.

Then "Oh, knowing loquacious I bet he mentioned this to you after seeing this reddit thread" would be a lot clearer in communicating that. Not everybody knows that loq likes reddit or that you know that loq likes reddit.

Secondly, it was adding a link to the several hundred comment long thread on reddit where many interesting things had already been said about the content in question.

Then, again, "...this reddit thread, which is quite long and has a bunch of good discussion in it as well" would have been great.

Thirdly, pointing out that the content probably came from another link aggregator is not a slight on the poster. I get about half my links from link aggregators, myself. I only point it out when the conversation over there was worth linking to.

I believe you that you didn't intend it as a slight. The gap between what you intended and what a super-terse "via Reddit, probably." actually conveys, especially given the annoying minor convention of second-hand via type stuff under discussion here, is what makes it not such a great idea.

Basically, instead of being terse like that go ahead and type out the whole thought so everybody knows where you're coming from and has any idea that you think the discussion you're linking to is something worth reading and not just an attributional gotcha. Everybody wins that way.
posted by cortex (staff) at 4:12 PM on October 2, 2010 [3 favorites]


> Thirdly, pointing out that the content probably came from another link aggregator is not a slight on the poster.

Whether you intend it to be a slight on the poster or not, it's a dick move. Don't do it.
posted by languagehat at 5:57 PM on October 2, 2010


every link worth anything gets passed around the echo chamber. a true list of via would be longer than some of the content linked to.
posted by the aloha at 6:20 PM on October 2, 2010


reddit:

"Here is a panda riding a bike"

MeFi:

"here is a video of a panda riding a bike (SYLT)"

pla: PLAGIARISM!!! PLAGARISM!!! WHERE IS THE VIA!!!

If I wanted to read comment threads full of sexism and misgoyny I'd just stick to Deadspin, which is at least funny. But I haven't read Reddit for four or five years now. People can function on the internet without ever venturing there, believe it or not.
posted by micawber at 7:05 PM on October 2, 2010


If we're going to be honest with ourselves, wouldn't the ultimate via be Al Gore?
posted by Sailormom at 7:20 PM on October 2, 2010


I made a post tonight and gave it a via just because I didn't see it on reddit and I wanted to make sure everyone knew that.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:20 PM on October 2, 2010


Neither posting , nor linking. Deal.
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 8:51 PM on October 2, 2010


micawber : PLAGIARISM!!! PLAGARISM!!! WHERE IS THE VIA!!!

Don't, y'know, let everything else I wrote in this thread influence your opinion. I know, I tend to write a lot of those nasty words (ugh!), but who cares about shades of grey when we have such pretty blacks and whites?
posted by pla at 6:39 AM on October 3, 2010


Actually, I learned yesterday that Starbucks has now trademarked Via. So we can't use it anymore. Sorry noob, you lose on all counts.
posted by theichibun at 7:20 AM on October 3, 2010 [1 favorite]


Don't, y'know, let everything else I wrote in this thread influence your opinion. I know, I tend to write a lot of those nasty words (ugh!), but who cares about shades of grey when we have such pretty blacks and whites?

Because it's 2010 and allegiance to a web site, especially one owned by a major communication corporation, is just so - pointless and meaningless that it irks me as much as someone who doesn't vote does. You're going to go out of your way to defend a *web site*? I mean, I'm not talking about a content scraper SEO con artist who copies someone's original content and parks it on their own URL so they can make money, but you're going ot go to bat about WHO HAD A LINK FIRST?! no really. stop one second and THINK about what you're getting all hot and bothered about, and then think again if there isn't a cause that truly matters in that world that couldn't use some of that energy.
posted by micawber at 11:04 AM on October 3, 2010


I love good vias, especially when the via goes to a site that could make a neat post all by itself. That's nice. madamjujujive has some really cool vias.
posted by mediareport at 12:29 PM on October 3, 2010


the noob seems to be providing a perfectly apt illustration of the fact that reddit needs to get over itself.
posted by koeselitz at 1:07 PM on October 3, 2010


OH HEY GUYS HAS ANYONE MADE A RHYME ABOUT REDDIT GETS THE CREDIT CAUSE YOU'RE WASTING THE THREAD OTHERWISE. FOR SERIOUS, THOUGH, IF SOMEONE POSTS A LINK, IT'S 'CAUSE THEY FOUND THE LINK. YOU CAN'T POST A LINK YOU HAVEN'T FOUND BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS YET. IF REDDIT WANTS TO COME AND POST THEIR LINKS TO METAFILTER THEY CAN HAVE ALL THE VIA THEY WANT. IT'S LIKE IF YOU ASK ME WHAT SOMEONE'S PHONE NUMBER IS AND I SAY "NO PROBLEM, IT'S 555-55555 [via]". HOW FUCKING STUPID. WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU FORWARD THAT NUMBER ON? DO YOU CREDIT ME? OR THE PHONEBOOK? THERE IS NOTHING SPECIAL ABOUT POSTING A LINK ON THE INTERNET. IT'S MADE OF LINKS :(
posted by doublehappy at 2:00 PM on October 3, 2010 [2 favorites]


I try to leave a [via] whenever possible, but someone once remarked that they thought I had gotten my Foxes Jumping on Trampolines idea from Boing Boing, when I actually just saw a video of it on my wife's computer and thought it was kind of fun.

I only mention it because I wish like hell I knew that it had been on Boing Boing. I mean can you think of a better freakin' title for foxes playing on trampolines?
posted by quin at 8:08 AM on October 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


Datapoint: see this post on traffic sources for a history of the design of Chewbacca. If nothing else, check the lovely graphic about the traffic patterns, how the story was visited over the course of a few days from various sources. Reddit is one of many major sources, but my post on the blue came about from io9, who got it from a different site.
posted by filthy light thief at 10:09 AM on October 4, 2010


micawber : You're going to go out of your way to defend a *web site*?

No, actually. Thus my sarcasm about reading anything I wrote beyond your one choice quote.
posted by pla at 11:33 AM on October 4, 2010


« Older I'd probably want to sweep thi...  |  if anyone lost a comment they'... Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments