how many via's?

January 11, 2002 1:54 PM

What is protocol re making reference to a link's source in FPP?
posted by Voyageman to Etiquette/Policy at 1:54 PM (8 comments total)

I prefer to attribute a link to where I saw it first, rather than necessarily spell out the entire freekin' incestuous chain of links, but that's just me. Is that what you meant?
posted by machaus at 2:59 PM on January 11, 2002

For a 'via' note to be necessary/polite, I think the link has to meet two criteria: (1) you've only seen it linked at one or two other blogs, and (2) it has to be obscure enough that finding it and linking to it could be considered noteworthy. The idea, I think, is to applaud people that find good rare stuff through original research, not just to note where you found it.
posted by lbergstr at 2:59 PM on January 11, 2002

The idea, I think, is to applaud people that find good rare stuff through original research, not just to note where you found it.

Badda-BING! Credit where credit is due. To me, part of the idea behind a via is to say: "This guy found this great thing, go read him, because there's more where that came from."
posted by frykitty at 3:11 PM on January 11, 2002

I didn't link Milov's source because, I couldn't find the link on the source site.

The previous thread that I had posted here also had a via link, but in that case the original link was in German, and Neowin had a decent English translation. I tried looking for it at the Reuters site, but couldn't find the English version of the story.
posted by riffola at 3:12 PM on January 11, 2002

Sorry I wasn't more specific. The question really related to "credit where credit is due" protocol for the [via.....]. (The Mefi plagiarism thread got me thinking.) Where you see it first makes sense to me. I assume that tracing links back is not a productive use of time. I also assume one should err on side of giving credit vs not.
posted by Voyageman at 3:24 PM on January 11, 2002

I'm certainly not the arbiter of good taste when it comes to posting (as has been proven already) but I'd assume up to two forms of credit citation for a link are acceptable. For example:

The Science of Crummy Examples is an article from John Q. Public that I learned about from Jennifer's Yuckylog. It says: [pullquote blah blah pullquote]

The idea, presumably, to credit the originator of the linkworthy item if it's not immediately evident, and certainly to pass on some props for digging it up.

It seems silly to me to follow all the "vias," though. Cite who showed it to you, and the author if appropriate. I'd certainly say that if you provide a pull-quote, you should definitely cite the author.
posted by majick at 3:41 PM on January 11, 2002

The idea, I think, is to applaud people that find good rare stuff through original research, not just to note where you found it.

This an excellent point. But a fair fraction of the time -- at least in the "silly or unusual linkstuff" world -- links are offered that were noteworthy at one time, have faded into obscurity for a while, and since discovered by people who missed the first boat.

The point being here that it's occasionally difficult to judge whether the act of finding something is noteworthy to others, even if it seems that way to you. I think it's appropriate to err on the side of excess citation. A "via" is pretty harmless and might send some new readers somebody's way.
posted by majick at 3:59 PM on January 11, 2002

Heres' what I thunk ... synopsised, a credit is useful if it's to a permalink which added something in discussion of the original content. Links to the front page of the place you found it don't tell me much about why I should look for more stuff there. Context is important, because at least hundreds of weblogs generally link to the same thing.
posted by walrus at 6:50 AM on January 12, 2002