This blogging practice has meant paying more attention and even discovering a whole bunch of little infrastructures that serve as interfaces to the blogging world, and provide a whole different view of the web. Technorati for example, has taken on a different meaning since-the-blog, given that it links the writing we do on vksethno to other contexts and discussions. Having identified, via said interface, a blog that discussed virtual ethnography, I was a little puzzled when I found long passages that echoed our research programme at the VKS (need I say, without reference to it. Proper references just feed the ego, no problem there.) Clicking to the source, I came to a wikipedia entry, in which even more material could be found that had this ‘strong family resemblance’ to our texts. Looking at the discussion page for that entry, it turns out the original poster had been called to task for this. The whistle-blower has even embedded the google search into the wikipedia discussion page. The results of this search showed several hits on the VKS pages, identifying it as the ‘source’ of the wikipedia entry. The offending poster responded by ‘altering’ the material slightly (getting it wrong in the process, in my opinion) and claiming to have acknowledged all sources (the hyperlink to VKS is not properly implemented, however, and therefore not visible).
So, am I once-burned-twice-shy from this episode or is this a tale that shows that quality control does work on certain spaces of the web?