Netiquette – no longer the stuff of bitching

Where we point out DCG’s sudden U-turn on matters of blogging and netiquette. Cheers Charles!

A while ago, when the Runs had still not descended to the depths of Plategate, Daphne had opted to cut and paste a whole blogpost from J’accuse into her blog (Someone else’s point of view, June 16 2009). In a comment on the Runs I pointed out that it would only be proper netiquette for Daphne to link to her source – only to get accused of bitching:

Comment posted June 16 @10.02

Top of the morning Daphne

… there are many more nice and succinct points where that came from.

Incidentally J’accuse and its content is covered by a Creative Commons Licence – which means you are more than welcome to copy and paste (zokk, fergha and all) so long as the attribution is clear – and that includes the web address of the page from which you performed the paste job.

That is the legal part. Then there is the part about netiquette, which requires that you Link, Link, and Link even in the(hypothetical) eventuality that you criticise a fellow blogger’s writings.

Many in Malta still have no idea about the difference between a blog, a blogger and a post. How about Malta’s senior columnist setting an example? Slowly, slowly…

Cheers.
Jacques

The link in question:
http://www.jacquesrenezammit.com/jaccuse/2009/06/12/what-joseph-did/*

[Daphne – Instead of bitching, Jacques, how about a simple thank-you for bringing your blog to a much, much wider audience than it would otherwise have had? Stuff netiquette. Good manners remain the same off line and on.]

Unsurprisingly other blogging regulars piped in to back up my polite request that blog posts are linked – only to be treated with the same uncouth answers such as the following:

[Daphne – Put me straight: is there an international organisation of Blog Police? A Girl Guides and Scouts organisation of rule-makers? Count me out. The Maltese clique mentality on the net – whatever next.]

[Daphne – Reuters is a commercial entity, governed by commercial rules. This is not a commercial entity. Feel free to copy and paste whatever bits of it you please, with or without links. I am more than aware of ‘netiquette’. Whether I could give a damn is another matter altogether. If Jacques isn’t happy with the free publicity as I choose to present it, then I will simply not present it at all. But I will not be dictated to.]

Daphne demonstrated a complete ignorance of Creative Commons license and seemed to labour under the impression that a mention on her blog was necessarily positive (free) publicity. There’s more:

Actually, it is standard behaviour on many blogs, Daphne. And it’s nothing to do with Maltese clique behaviour.

http://www.bloggingtips.com/2007/11/25/blog-etiquette-the-rules-are-quite-simple/

[Daphne – When I want lessons in how to run a successful blog, I’ll ask for them. As for this link, you cannot be serious.]

Needless to say that once again Daphne preferred confusing the issue of successful with politically correct – notoriety with fame. And then it turned aggressive:

[Daphne – Listen up, Alex. 1. I am not part of the ‘blogging community’ and I have no patience for gangs, cliques or associations of like-minded individuals, even if they are virtual and the only thing they have in common is that they ‘blog’. 2. There is no link not because I made a mistake but because I made a choice. So obviously, that choice still holds and hence I am not going to apologise and backtrack just because a few members of the ‘blogging community’ decided this is appropriate. I do not do and say things just to get pests with nothing better to do off my back. I am more likely to engage them in battle, even if it is only over a link. Surely you should have picked that up by now.]

Sadly what the bloggers and blog readers were pointing out was not the need for an apology but for a simpe acknowledgement that linking is part of the blogging etiquette. You borrow and idea so you acknowledge the source – simple.

But it’s not for Daphne to acknowledge a mistake or- in her own words to “apologise and backtrack” is it? Well not until this week. Daphne’s constant borrowing from blogger Charles Crawford’s blog did not go down well with Mr Crawford (of the mysterious government consultancy conspiracy theory fame). Here’s Charles on Daphne:

Plus Daphne herself on several occasions has quoted great chunks from my blog but without the usual blogging courtesy of giving her readers the link to my original work. See eg here.

What’s going on? Is this normal Maltese media behaviour?

Maybe I should sue Malta under the European Convention of Human Rights to stop local media outlets traducing me but giving me no respectable right of reply?

Phew. Another one “bitching” from the “blogging community”. Surely he’ll be damned before he get’s an apology from the Runs. Surely? Well. Not really. You see there is such a thing as two weights and two measures – even from the infallible quarters where the sun always shines. Forgive me for really relishing this moment but somehow I’d like to see Daffers and her band of accolytes who enjoyed “dishing it out” in this post slither out of this corner now.

An accolyte of the Runs points out (on the Runs itself in today’s latest post) that Charlie is rather miffed and you just have to love DCG’s response (in answer to the same comment):

Yanika:

Charles Crawford seems a bit irritated with the way the Maltese, including you, are treating him…. look at this:

http://charlescrawford.biz/blog/malta-rubbish

[Daphne – Yes, I apologised for not posting a link.]

Ooh la! She what???? She apologised? Did I read that properly? Funny though. I’ve been through the Blogoir and there are no apologies by Daphne in the comment sections (11 till time of posting) so I am guessing that this is either (a) a private apology or (b) another of the “I have a good mind to write to the Chief Justice” stunts.

We hate to say it (not really, but still) but hey when we pointed out that it was not done to quote without linking : we were right.

* The link in question changed since the great J’accuse earthquake caused a shift in the archives. It is now: http://www.akkuza.com/2009/06/12/what-joseph-did/