The author should have put quotes around the paragraphs that were blatantly copy and only slightly tweaked to show it came directly from the piece and wasn't written by Harrison.
Oh, and your Twitter response was laughably immature to me.
and your Twitter response was laughably immature to me.
That is what put it over the top for me. The astonishingly lazy copying was bad enough, but feeling entitled about it is shocking.
Here's the thing -- people linked from sites like TNW report little to no traffic (which, of course, is wholly the intention of sites like TNW -- they don't want the eyeballs leaving). Quite the opposite, in fact, because this blogspam (is it anything but? Was there anything of value added?) steals traffic and linklove that would have gone to the usurped.
TNW: Drop the laughable notion that you're doing anyone a favour when you steal their content. It sells to no one. Good content will find its way atop the social news sites quickly, and all you're doing is getting in the way and trying to steal off some of the traffic of other people's work.
If I say, "This text is from John Doe," and then I proceed to quote John Doe to the point that the majority of my text is, in fact, John Doe's, then I have plagiarized John Doe.
In other words, attribution does not save you from plagiarism.
But that's the thing: you didn't do more, and that's the problem here.
I don't see him as a troll. I see him as a guy who posted something he put a lot of effort into and ended up having his work reposted without even being justly credited. He has every right to be upset and share his story, and people deserve to know this.
P.S. Just stop with the Tweets, it's embarrassing not only you, but the publication you represent.
You copied and pasted the article and changed a few words, then made it look like Harrison Weber wrote the text, even though he did not. The attribution is great but in this case not enough.
Either the text should have been created independently, or it should have been made clear that it was a direct quote (fair use) from Gross.
You should have learned why this was wrong in high school.
Obviously you could have done more: reference him right from the start, not only after he made a stink about you copy-pasting his material verbatim. Timing matters, earlier is more.
This is unless he's lying that you did it only after the fact. Care to explain this point? Edit: I see you already did elsewhere in this tread.
I guess they don't teach this in the CEO school you went to, but it's not about crediting him more, it's about stealing from him less. There's a difference.
Way to go with the ad hominem attack! As has by now been pointed out many, many times, your plagiarism, subsequent tweets and then coverup aren't acceptable.
Oh, and your Twitter response was laughably immature to me.