Jump to content

An Open Letter to AppleInsider

Swad

By Swad

 Share

Dear AppleInsider,

 

As faithful readers, we appreciate the fine way in which you bring us the latest rumors of all things Apple. However, it has come to our attention that you used our story about Rosetta improvements and a iTunes universal binary in an article of your own without citing your sources, one of the first rules of journalism. Now, perhaps there is another OSx86 news site somewhere that reported on these two items apart from us. I am not aware of such a site. But if this is case, please tell us so.

 

The reason for our concern? Well, in a wonderful example of the art of spreading rumors, Mac Rumors used your article to "corroborate" a story in which they had previously referenced our original story. Essentially, they used your article about our story… to confirm our story.

 

It is for reasons such as this that Mac rumor sites such as your own are seen as lacking credibility by many – we can’t have an “infinite loop” of stories confirming each other without first confirming the original information. You normally do an excellent job at reporting and most Mac users appreciate your efforts. Next time, just give credit where credit is due, and problems such as this can be avoided.

 

I just hope another site will confirm this story for me.

 

-Mashugly

 Share
Go to articles

User Feedback

Recommended Comments

suleiman

Mashugly, I'm the Editor-in-Chief for the Muslim Stories Project. If you're interested in getting another team member on board for drafting articles/letters to people let me know, I'd be more than happy to oblige :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest The Balance Of Judgement

Guest The Balance Of Judgement

Posted

Dear OSx86 Project,

 

Now, perhaps there is another OSx86 news site somewhere that reported on these two items apart from us. I am not aware of such a site. But if this is case, please tell us so.

 

I'm not the admin of AppleInsider but I can tell you that there are the sites which report about the Rosetta's AltiVec support earlier than you.

 

The site is here.

 

http://www.lunddal.dk/blojsom/blog/lunddal/

 

As you can see, they reported this on 11.16.2005. I rechecked this thread and it says that it was posted on 11.22.2005, 6 days after them.

 

'Boj

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mlowry
... it has come to our attention that you used our story about Rosetta improvements and a iTunes universal binary in an article of your own without citing your sources...

 

Naming one's sources is important, but have you considered the possibility that AppleInsider's source was the same as your source, or that they arrived at the information independently?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hatoncat

I wrote one of the two articles in question, I do not believe AppleInsider is responsible for citing my article, there are multiple sources that provided that same information at the same time, which falls under 'general knowledge' terms that really make it impossible to be a rip-off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Swad

Thanks for your comments everyone.

 

Yes, I have considered that they get their sources independently, but that is no excuse for not citing it. BOJ, the reason they might not have wanted to cite the site you gave us is that they pretty much just list the release notes there, which is a clear breach of a non-disclosure agreement.

 

hatoncat, while you did write the article, it's still irresponsible for them to use our or your website and not cite the info. I can handle that it might be considered public domain after it's listed on our site and another, NDA-breaking site. But if you're a rumor site like AI, it is incredibly important to tell people where you got your info if it's a publicly accessible site! Why? So that things like the MacRumors debacle don't happen again. It would make their site more legitimate.

 

While citing may not be mandatory, it is responsible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Swad

Update: After speaking with Kasper of AppleInsider, this simple problem had a simple resolution. The OSx86 Project is very aware that we're not the only ones privy to information about Apple's new seeds, and we don't claim to be. After having some of the largest Mac media sites link to our story however - just before the AppleInsider story - we assumed that the "reports on the Internet" referenced in the article were from our own news, since ours were the only ones circulating. While I'm still not aware (after some searching) of any other outlet reporting on the Rosetta story, Kasper assured me that we were not his source. I believe him.

 

I appreciate AppleInsider's professionalism in this matter - I still hold them in high respect. Lessons learned by everyone: 1) if "reports" are on the "internet," they still deserve recognition, even if they're not us. 2) Post hoc ergo propter hoc - just because our story gets a lot of notice right before another story - even if it seems we're the only one talking about it - don't assume they used our information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bofors

While I am very interested in "credit' issues, whether it be for leaking, hacking or journalism, it is also great to see how this site has come in just a few months.

 

It seems that the OSx86 is already a major player in the competive mac-related new site industry. This site will while likely be a monster in a few years.

 

I only wish, I had registered sooner... I just had nothing to say, only lurked.

 

One more thing... I really like the lastest overhaul of the forum. Very nice graphics, so to who ever deserves that credit, thank you.

 

EDIT: Regarding credit for site graphics, I believe that would be ChrisAshtear.

Edited by bofors
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...