What can we learn about attribution/coauthorship as the line between scholarly and non-sc collaboration becomes blurred

To read, say, Walter Benjamin or Susan Sontag or Roland Barthes is to encounter a sensibility as distinctive, and a voice as powerful, as any in 20th-century literature. “The motive of the critic who is really worth reading,” as H.L. Mencken put it, “is not the motive of the pedagogue, but the motive of the artist.”

"ridiculously photogenic guy" taken by one person, dubbed by another, photo of a third, made famous on reddit.

RT @AdviceToWriters: Will Kindle's Free Samples Change the Structures of Plots? (via @AuthorAnswers) || #mscm150

The SPARC Author Addendum is a legal instrument that modifies the publisher’s agreement and allows you to keep key rights to your articles. The Author Addendum is a free resource developed by SPARC in partnership with Creative Commons <http://www.creativecommons.org> and Science Commons <http://science.creativecommons.org>, established non-profit organizations that offer a range of copyright options for many different creative endeavors.

WikiTrust is an open-source, on-line reputation system for Wikipedia authors and content. WikiTrust is hosted by the Institute for Scalable Scientific Data Management at the School of Engineering of the University of California, Santa Cruz.

To use WikiTrust, you need to install a Firefox add-on, and then visit one of the Wikipedias on which it is active (currently, the the English, French, German, or Polish Wikipedias). You will see a WikiTrust tab. If you click on it, you will see the text of the Wikipedia, colored according to the degree with which it has been revised by high-reputation authors:

High reputation text, revised by many high-reputation colors, will appear over a white background.
Low-reputation text, which has not benefitted yet from revision by multiple, high-reputation users, is displayed over an orange background: the more intense the orange, the lower the reputation of text.

In this way, WikiTrust will help you spot recent, unrevised changes to Wikipedia pages. Furthermore, if you ALT-click on a word, you will be taken to the diff where that word (in that context) was first introduced in the article: this enables you to trace the text back to its authors.

And that’s how I feel about links in general: the source author creates something worth linking to, and the rest of us can link as we see fit, regardless of how we found it.

The proper place for ethics and codes is in ensuring that a reasonable number of people go to the source instead of just reading your rehash.

Codifying “via” links with confusing symbols is solving the wrong problem.

the implications for the artform, and even authorship itself, are giddying