I like the chart that Stephen VanDyke did showing how information moves through the blogosphere. He said he did it without actually testing his hypothesis but it makes perfect sense to me. From what he says, it seems to be at least partially in response to the Wired article on “blog infections” and some of the weird resulting slashdotty nonsense. I honestly don’t understand how anyone can call what bloggers do “plagiarism” and/or take umbrage at it. It’s what I call the “Blog Ponzi Scheme” where there is a pyramid of people who find links from other people. Some folks are higher up the pyramid but that that certainly doesn’t make those lower on it guilty of plagiarism. What exactly to people think is going on here? You read something, it interests you and you post a link. Maybe you cite where you saw it or maybe not, maybe you add your own pithy comment (with or without lithping) or maybe you don’t. That’s it.
For the dumbasses who think this is plagiarism, is there only one person who can link to any given story? Anyone else who reads them should then avoid it? That doesn’t make any sense but then this is why I seldom if every read the comments on /. anymore. I do believe that given most stories, you could machine generate the comments. A few knee-jerk support posts, a few knee-jerk opposition posts, a certain percentage of ad hominem attacks of previous posters, etc.