Reply With QuoteComes across as quite patronising to me. A smack in the mouth should suffice.
As some will know, I had a thing about Rolex and Smiths on Everest published a while ago:
https://www.outdoorjournal.com/featu...versy-to-rest/
Quill and pen have now published an article that links to my work and then gives little more than a rewrite of it here:
https://quillandpad.com/2021/01/23/m...yths-debunked/
Part 3
I thought it was a bit cheeky, joined in the chat afterwards, but also stated this:
At that point, I'd have been happy with pretty well any sort of acknowledgement, What I got was this:I’m the author of the work published over at The Outdoor Journal and being discussed here. While I am committed to the free exchange of ideas, it would have been nice to have been consulted in advance before such an accurate reworking was produced. However, The Outdoor Journal is credited, keeping to the letter, if not the spirit, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to be a little miffed, even as I get involved , no?
I have received no messages here or at any other little forum.After reading your article on outdoorjournal.com, Matthew, and obtaining authorisation from them to link to and quote from it, I tried to contact you through the OJ editor and even joined your little forum and left you private messages. In the absence of any reply from you, I understood that you were not interested and went with the authorisation I had from outdoorjournal.com. Your research deserved to be brought to the attention of the wider watch community rather than languishing on a ramblers’ magazine and a forum. Quillandpad.com is one of the leading online horological magazines, syndicated by channels such as Watchbox and Watchville alongside the likes of Hodinkee, Revolution and Worn & Wound and I am sure that your article has enjoyed a surge of hits this week following its referencing in the above article, which in any case is not exclusively about the Everest watches, it covers other myths too.
I really do believe that knowledge should be free, but IP should be acknowledged too. In writing the article I both consulted with and credited Brousard (of this parish) and I'd have been happy had the same effort been made. Even as it was, I was only miffed, but this response? Now I feel quite annoyed. So opinions? is this fair enough and should I suck it up or is it just plain rude?
Comes across as quite patronising to me. A smack in the mouth should suffice.
The arrogance of thinking they've done you a favour!
Worth finding out if they did actually contact outdoorjournal.com and that they gave permission? The 'little forum' PM is meaningless a they've not said which forum, and firing off a PM to someone with the same username does not mean it was you they contacted.
I do know a little about this, having published and written hundreds of articles. If it is was me I'd be looking on this positively in that it will bring your article to a far wider audience than would otherwise be the case. The publishers have obtained consent from the publishers of the original article (which is more than many would do) and clearly linked to the original article. It would have been nice if they'd mentioned you as author, but on balance there's only good to come out of this from your point of view and no real downside that I can see. Maybe you could ask them to do that? Easy enough for them to update.
I agree,Originally Posted by spud767
OP I would be 'miffed' as well
I would reply stating that they are patronising, you received no messages on the little forum (what ever that maybe) and that plagiarism is plagiarism regardless of the 're write' (I am sure you have done this already)
There are a few issues here, I think
- Like you, I would have expected to see your name in the credit, rather than just a link to OJ. I would not expect to see reference to your sources (even the veritable Broussard), but you, by name, definitely.
- The tone of the reply is a little rude, but before doing anything else, you should check whether the rest of the reply is accurate.
- Did they actually contact OJ to discuss cross-linking and credit, and receive it?
- Did they ask OJ to contact you, as they claim?
- The description of "little forum" is very intentionally rude, do you think they meant TZ-UK?
- The clear message they want to tell you is that they are more important than OJ and you should be grateful that they even referred to the article, which is a little arrogant, to say the least.
But what can you do? Probably nothing, other than write a suitably worded reply, and possibly a small addendum to the OJ article.
Dave
"even joined your little forum"
The pompous s**t! How unprofessional.
I think JDH above is right in the substance of the thing but the tone of the communication to you is bloody rude and presumptuous.
Don't mess around... DDoS the cheeky f**ker!
I think Quill and Pad have a point about broadening the readership. However I found their reply particularly condescending and I too would be annoyed. Definitely worth checking to see if they did try to get in touch and if they got permission from Outdoor Journal.
Cheers,
Gary
I would check what communications have actually occurred with OJ. Assuming they gave permission and depending how that was worded, see where that takes you. As for the reply, it is rather snotty and I, too, would be annoyed (probably incensed for a few minutes!) but thereafter I like jdh1's idea of requesting an updated acknowledgement (rising above the snottiness in the process). The wider audience is a positive development.
This.
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
It seems that Hodinkee don't own the copyright to smug, patronising guff. Where do all these people come from and do they all go on the same training course?
Rather like the donkeys I wouldn't take anything these people say at face value.
In the Sotadic Zone, apparently.
Based on the "your little forum" comment and them saying they reached out when you have no record I would check with OJ to see if Q&P did in fact get in touch with them at all.
I spoke to both the editor and technical director and both felt that the letter had been observed:
However, at this point, it's not the lazy journalism that whipped rather a lot of careful research with minimal attribution. It's the condescending, justification that I'm surprised at. I was expecting that from the author of The Best Of Time and he's earned the right but this chap? Less so.Yes, the writer got in touch with us briefly last year asking to "borrow" our sources; but I didn't hear back from him afterwards.
Mind you, I think that many here would agree that I should put it down to karma and move on.
What an odd bunch they are - they liked your article and valued your findings / conclusions, yet they send you a disrespectful and quite rude response. As above, I would at a minimum check on their enquiries (have they told they truth) and I would also request an acknowledgement.
I'm intrigued, this is a new one on me and I like donkeys. Why the donkey reference?
I believe that Hodinkee are known by that or a similar name on one of the other forums - it might be Watchlords.
Edit: Yes, it is Watchlords and they seem to have most of a whole sub-forum devoted to it. Some of it is quite amusing.
https://watchlords.com/viewforum.php?f=194
Last edited by Carlton-Browne; 28th January 2021 at 14:14.
In the Sotadic Zone, apparently.
I think it is a bloody liberty personally Matt.
You obviously spent a lot of time on your work, at the very least you deserve a credit.
Cheers,
Neil.
The reply is somewhat brusque and not particularly polite and,yes,I think you should’ve been credited for the article.
However,if you strongly believe that knowledge should be free to all then your work will be read by many more people and what you are basically describing is a bruised ego.
That probably sounds a bit rude but it’s not intended to be.
I think it’s reasonable to request a named credit and
possibly an apology for the dismissive tone of their message to you.
Similar here.
Some people are just a bit rude, but take it as a compliment Matt.
Because it is.
You should be clearly credited though - that isn't too much to ask.
So clever my foot fell off.
Aside from the tone of that message, a credit would have been a basic common courtesy.
I hate to say it but this has the uncomfortable sting of truth. I'm not sure it's ego so much as disrespect for how the effort I put in to it. There's nothing terribly clever in the article, just a lot of determined research, combing through the RGS, The Times, Kew and a few other places. I got bored of the same arguments going round in circles and decided to solve it. The ironic thing is that the argument I put together was based on images and was scotched by the RGS refusing me permission as they apparently didn't want to offend Rolex. The one I finally used owes plenty to Broussard, who dug out the debate in the BHI Journal. I'm also aware there's a bit of deja vu for me as Deaton ripped off my argument about Bond's watch a decade or so ago. That was far worse, as he claimed my work as his original research.
Last edited by M4tt; 28th January 2021 at 15:17.
I would begin by asking him which little forum he meant and how he did try to contact you.
Copy his boss on the email just for shits and giggles.
I read the response differently to most it appears. I.feel the response is complimentary about your work and indicating as such it deserves greater prominence which they can provide. I don't believe they are patronising you.
The thing is these messages get lost in translation in written word and can be hard to gauge the tone. But that's how I read it.
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
Do they have a letterbox?
Over here, which I am sure is the same in the UK, acknowledgement in the credits to the original author is all that's required once published in the public domain. If they did not publish your research but provided a link to your public statement I would accept it as well.
The way the Colin person is blowing his own trumpet from the 'Quillandpad.com is one of the leading...' part onwards is rather pathetic.
That said, the first time I read his reply I was quite outraged, but when I went over it a few times more, it didn't seem THAT bad anymore. My advice would be to apply Hanlon's razor to it and move on -- he ultimately did you and the watch community a favour, even if he didn't show top form as a journalist.
Re-using a large part of an article is simply laziness. Re-using an article without a source (your name or place where it was found) is absolute wrong. In the academic world even a deadly sin! Then their contact with you... I don't get the part 'We have tried to get in contact with you. That didn't work so we assumed...' Very rude and not professional! Doesn't leave them free of putting an editor's note under the article: 'We've tried to contact the author...' etc.
On the other hand: being copied like this is the best sign of quality one can get!
M
A breathtakingly rude and condescending reply, I would be irritated too. You could perhaps write to their editor, and politely explain the situation? A simple thank you and a credit is the least you could expect.
Posting Permissions
