> "Someone has to explain to me exactly what we should have done differently here."
Obviously there are things your writer (Harrison Weber) could have done differently:
1) include the attribution and link at the outset
2) either provide true quotes or true rewrites, rather than slight paraphrases of the original text
And you yourself could have behaved differently as well:
3) when challenged, be friendly, even if you are (or appear to be) in the right. Summarize what you're seeing and then ask a question, instead of making accusations or insulting Joshua.
If your first tweet had instead said "we cited you as a source, which is standard procedure. Is there something else that's bothering you?" and then you waited for a response, you'd have given Joshua an opportunity to clarify his stance regarding the ninja edit, and you'd have given yourself an opportunity to apologize on behalf of your writer for the initial mistake.
Even if you had been right and everything had been sourced correctly from the start, a friendly stance and a few kind words would have done wonders. Consider this exchange: "...is there something else that's bothering you?" "Your wording in paragraph X is very similar to mine" "I've turned it into a direct quote. Does that resolve the issue?" With the issue resolved and no insults thrown around, Joshua would have had no reason to escalate, and instead of reading about plagiarism, the HN audience might be reading an article about conflict resolution, with your behavior put forth as a shining positive example.
Obviously there are things your writer (Harrison Weber) could have done differently:
1) include the attribution and link at the outset
2) either provide true quotes or true rewrites, rather than slight paraphrases of the original text
And you yourself could have behaved differently as well:
3) when challenged, be friendly, even if you are (or appear to be) in the right. Summarize what you're seeing and then ask a question, instead of making accusations or insulting Joshua.
If your first tweet had instead said "we cited you as a source, which is standard procedure. Is there something else that's bothering you?" and then you waited for a response, you'd have given Joshua an opportunity to clarify his stance regarding the ninja edit, and you'd have given yourself an opportunity to apologize on behalf of your writer for the initial mistake.
Even if you had been right and everything had been sourced correctly from the start, a friendly stance and a few kind words would have done wonders. Consider this exchange: "...is there something else that's bothering you?" "Your wording in paragraph X is very similar to mine" "I've turned it into a direct quote. Does that resolve the issue?" With the issue resolved and no insults thrown around, Joshua would have had no reason to escalate, and instead of reading about plagiarism, the HN audience might be reading an article about conflict resolution, with your behavior put forth as a shining positive example.