Wow.

  • reliv3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    2 days ago

    Your understanding of what qualifies as plagiarism feels wrong. Just because an organization advertises itself as a “weekly analysis and news” doesn’t disqualify them from citing sources. They still are required to give credit where credit is due… Even mainstream news channels will let their audience know where they are acquiring their information whenever it isn’t coming from their own investigations.

    At the end of the day, if a primary source privately requests a citation, then a citation is definitely required, so this is where lmg really messed up. GN (as the primary source) felt wronged when lmg used information from their own investigative journalism and did not give them credit (when they apparently gave Jayz2cents credit). At that point in time, lmg was obligated to give GN credit and lmg admitted to this mistake; but then did little to nothing to rectify it.

    • DogWater@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      And moreover, the question is from Linus about why they weren’t given a right to reply to GN’s first big piece. The plagiarism and subsequent lack of resolution is stated as a reason that GN felt uncomfortable. GN evaluated that situation and felt it met their own standard. I dont know if LMGs reporting on EVGA actually qualifies as plagarism, but GN is successfully providing the context for their decision.

      Ultimately, Linus asked why? And GN said essentially because you did ‘this’ and it crossed our threshold for hostility, and we actually didn’t give those other outlets right of reply either like your claiming we did so calm down.