Lisa Minter <email@example.com> wrote:
> I love the Toshiba laptop I bought last year. I keep just about
> everything related to work, school, and my finances on it. So when I
> received an e-mail from Toshiba etc.
Except _Lisa Minter_ didn't 'write' this, did she?
I got into this article and after a while started to think that it
wasn't really anything like the comments Lisa has written here before.
Then, at the end, I found
> Scott Spanbauer is a contributing editor for PC World He writes the
> monthly Internet Tips column.
which suggests that the entire article in fact is from PC World,
written by this Scott Spanbauer.
Looks like there was a (big?) lapse in attribution here.
I of course believe in Fair Use, etc., etc. I'm just saying that
perhaps we should have been notified of the source of this article at
the beginning, rather than at the end.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, when the _original_ article
appeared, the attribution and fair use quotes were given. But, when
the first response by a reader was printed, the problem so common
occurred, which was that the person given in the header as 'From:'
(in this case and many others, Lisa Minter), the software did not
read the actual article and instead attributed it to Lisa Minter.
Often times I catch that in the final editing and add a line at the
very top of the article saying 'TELECOM Digest Editor noted in
response to an article by X' since as often as not that happens to
my editor's notes. The responder wants to talk about what I said
rather than what the 'original writer' said. I probably should have
been more careful to catch that. I've commented a couple times that I
am probably the only person to actually read every word in the Digest
each day, and that is only because I _have_ to; I am the editor. I
frankly only expect people to read the articles of especial interest
to them; not the other stuff. If I were not the editor here, I would
not read every word of it either. Anyway, please excuse the slipshod