As Twitter has grown as a platform for passing along bits of news,I’ve noticed trends in the way organizations handle information. Here’s one thing I find annoying:the attribution of original sources.
Here’s just one example:
The link leads to this story by James Crugnale.
To decipher that for those who don’t understand blog-ese,Crugnale found the story at ThinkProgress (the first link),hence the h/t (hat tip,a form of acknowledgement),and ThinkProgress got the story from Chicagoist.
With me so far?
Now,tracing the story to Chicagoist,I find a large photo of a McD’s application and two paragraphs explaining some of the history of antagonism between the protesters and the Chicago BOT traders. At the bottom of that story,I find this:Found via Windy Citizen.
So I click the link,and there’s that photo again (nobody knows how to correct white balance in Photoshop?). There’s no text accompanying this post,except Via @DeProgrammer (It’s really apparently @DeProgrammer9)
And here we arrive at the (apparent) end of the hat tip trail. A photo posted on Oct. 31 with the caption “The board of trade thought it would be funny to litter McDonalds applications on our heads at #occupychi. #WTF”
So to recap,here’s the chain of origin of the Mediaite tweet as I followed it across the web:
Mediaite >ThinkProgress >Chicagoist >Windy Citizen >@DeProgrammer9
Or,in visual form,from point of origin to my twitter feed:
I understand why these outfits repeat the story with their own slight modification. And I give each of them props for giving some credit to the site where they found the information,which is more than many traditional media outlets do. But I wish there were a better way to follow the origin of a piece of news other than running down the rabbit trail of hat tips to find the source.
It would be nice if someone could invent a “package”tool that would let you include the entire digital trail in a single link or something like that.