Romenesko Quotemarkgate
As Poynter revealed that Jim Romenesko didn't always put quotes around verbatim bits of his source story in his posts, journos debated whether or not the case was an issue worth worrying about.
- "Though information sources have always been displayed prominently in Jim’s posts and are always linked at least once (often multiple times), too many of those posts also included the original author’s verbatim language without containing his or her words in quotation marks, as they should have."..."This style represents Jim’s deliberate choice to be transparent about the information’s origins while using the source’s own words to represent his or her work. If only for quotation marks, it would be exactly right. Without those quotation marks, it is incomplete and inconsistent with our publishing practices and standards on Poynter.org."
Questions over Romenesko’s attributions spur changes in writing, editing | Poynter.Poynter.org works hard to meet the highest standards of journalism excellence, and I learned late Wednesday that we have not consistently...- One word noticeably missing from Poynter's write-up was "plagiarism." Instead, Julie Moos says Romenesko exhibited a "pattern of incomplete attribution." In an e-mail interview with 10,000 words, Moos explains her word choice:“Jim’s intent was to credit the source and his posts do that with a source line and at least one link back to the original material, often more. He is transparent about where the information originated, he just missed a step by failing to signal the reader with quotation marks when verbatim text was being used. Others are free to characterize it how they wish, I don’t characterize it as plagiarism, which usually involves an intent to deceive.”
Poynter: Jim Romenesko’s Posts Have “Incomplete Attribution” - 10,000 WordsThe Romenesko blog is one of the most well-known, and revered, blogs in the industry and read daily by many journalists. Romenesko, who i...- The dust-up started after Columbia Journalism Review's Erika Fry called Poynter to discuss underattribution on Romenesko's blog.
Over-aggregation, Under-attribution, and PoynterYou may have seen Poynter editor Julie Moos's quick and thoughtful response to questions posed by CJR assistant editor Erika Fry on her s...- A few came out upset or disappointed by Romenesko (whether his writing practices or something else). Others welcomed the changes (including additional pre-editing), believing they would offer some clarity.
@romenesko makes $170,000, works from home, and apparently can't even write his own material? bit.ly/tP7Q3k bit.ly/sbkpvZ
I have a zero-tolerance policy for plagiarists, but can't get worked up about @romenesko. It was wrong. Don't do it again. Happy retirement.- Dan Mitchell in a comment on Romenesko's Facebook page:"I've never noticed that you used material verbatim without quotes or direct, immediate attribution (though I wasn't looking for it), as was apparently done in the example given here. But this example is a little troubling to me. There are longish passages that I would have assumed was your own writing. This is most definitely NOT the standard for a professional blog, where attributions have to be clear.
It's easily remedied, but this example, at least, meets the definition of plagiarism, especially given that your own writing is interspersed with that of others. I don't think you're a "plagiarist" -- in that I don't think you were being lazy or trying to fool anyone -- but this does meet the definition." 
Romenesko finally gets an editor. Maybe they'll even consider the axes some of his sources grind? poynter.org/latest-news/ro… via @AddThis
@gannettblog i don't understand your reaction. Poynter should hold itself to a higher standard; they're the ones who help set the standard.- Comment from Pink on the Romensko post:"Wait. Why are you fluffing up and trying to put a costume on plagiarism? This really isn't "aggregation;" it's flat-out plagiarism. When you take someone else's words and sentences and insert them into your own article, without quotation marks or without citing the source, it is plagiarism. It didn't take a "sharp eye" to notice this, but it did take someone to take the time to actually point this out to Poynter. Who knows if this was done purposely or done by laziness, but call it what it is, Poytner or else it just seems like you're not taking this seriously and that you're offended that someone could complain about this."
- But the majority of people seemed the be coming out in support of Romenesko.
Romenesko QuoteMarkGate is.gd/Oe1Fw2 is to me absurd. Read Romenesko for 11 yrs. Always understood he was mixing in verbatim chunks.
I think @Romenesko was more generous than most about including links to an original work. bit.ly/tP7Q3k
I understand @poynter's need to be the purest of the pure, but I can't imagine any journos feeling ripped off by @romenesko. That said...
This whole @romenesko thing is a bit much, no? It's not like he made up sources, stories or quotes.
I didn't even think of @romenesko as "writing." He was copying, aggregating and linking. Everyone knew it. @juliemmoos
Two quote marks mean a lot in 140 characters. You click on the link and get full version. @romenesko is like search result, not a publisher
The only unusual thing I ever noticed abt @romenesko's summaries of my pieces: He always found my misplaced ledes. bit.ly/sDZqUH- And some pointed to other related issues.
