Speaking of “change you can xerox”: for the third or fourth time in the last six months, I’ve seen a discussion on an H-Net channel oddly timed to a similar discussion on academic blogs and forums–without attribution, and introduced by major historians. I won’t name names, but it is a bit disingenuous to take ideas from the blogosphere and accept the kudos of one’s colleagues, especially in matters related to new technologies. Or has academia always been this way, the internet making it more apparent? Do academics fail to attribute ideas to the internet in the same way as students?
[Edited 2/24]
Europe Endless 
February 23, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Yes, and yes. I think academia has always been this way, in the sense that people with higher profiles are always given credit for introducing ideas even when they’ve been percolating upwards, because [sarcasm] the ideas wouldn’t get as wide circulation without the attention of said bigwigs [/sarcasm].
I think there’s an assumption, as well, that ideas on the internet are fundamentally half-baked, so they can’t possibly be worth citing unless someone takes them and makes them respectable. Some bloggers refer to this as the “skyhook” phenomenon: high profile blogs can reach down and lift an idea or a post out of its context (i.e. relative obscurity). We’ve been trying to find an alternative to the skyhook through carnivals….
Its absurd, but I think the answer may be to be pushier: when discussions come up that have been hashed out in the blogs, cite them. When issues come up on which bloggers have expertise, make the connections. We’ve been trying to do it a bit with Froginawell and H-Asia/H-Japan.
February 24, 2008 at 8:13 am
Jonathan,
I’m not entirely prepared to believe that academics would be so opportunistic–certainly not en masse. At least in part, there must be some cowardice among scholars to admit how involved they can be with new technologies, whether reading blogs and forums with dedication, or happening upon them with random Google searches.
February 25, 2008 at 4:52 am
I’m growing cynical: I’m prepared to believe it, but so far what I see isn’t a mass movement of plagiarism, but a privileged few taking advantage of their position to leapfrog into the forefront of new material.
Part of the problem may well be the result of non-bloggers becoming part of the blog audience in larger numbers; let’s face it: the readers of blogs have mostly been other bloggers for a while now. Bloggers know how to cite blogs, understand the rationale for doing so. I still think that the informal nature of blogs makes them rife for unattributed borrowing, especially of techniques and tools. Many readers, if they’re not regulars, or if they skim a lot of sources, may have trouble remembering their sources, and not have the wherewithal to find them again, nor the incentive, since stealing from bloggers still isn’t considered as big a deal.
March 2, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Hadn’t heard the term “skyhook” before, but I definitely agree that that phenomenon exists. It makes me think about my own practice as a history blogger though – I often save good ideas for development at length in an article rather than blogging about them – does anyone else do this? So perhaps (for me at least) a change of attitude to history-blogging itself is necessary in order to do away with skyhooking.
March 3, 2008 at 11:08 am
I tend to use (or have in the past) used my blog to develop my ideas. I think that blogs, as informal environments, can help. Perhaps a better solution would be that H-Net networks with academic blog so that there is greater awareness of what is greater awareness of what is going on in the blogosphere.