The discussions of copying norms and new bloggers reminds me of something. Well, several things. First, it reminds me to urge you to check out the Economics of Contempt blog, a new econ blog. Its shadowy proprietor and I had a rather . . . er . . . spirited exchange last Thursday regarding the Coase Theorem (If you're not familiar with the topic, I highly recommend this interview with Professor Coase from Reason). He argued that libertarians invoke the Coase Theorem much too freely, when it cannot actually be fully applied to the real world.
I replied that while I think the theorem does have a lot of valuable insight to offer into economic and regulatory problems, I quite agree that it is far too often applied profligately. In a world with unequal endowments and non-zero transaction costs, you need a lot of modifications before it can be usefully applied. However, in the conversation in question, zero transaction costs were among the more reasonable assumptions being made--it was one of those conversations where by the time you're done, you've had to give everyone an in-brain computer in order to fully explore the basic philosophical questions. I didn't mention this because it wasn't really germane to the point of the post, which was about normative justice intuitions, not The Coase Theorem and Land Use.
He updated his post, and we parted friends.
The next day, as you may recall, Kathy G. unleashed a rather . . . er . . . spirited criticism of the same post, with basically the same point: the Coase Theorem isn't realistic. We . . . well, I wouldn't say we parted friends.
Which brings me to the second thing I was reminded of: an email I received from the Economics of Contempt's shadowy proprietor the other day.
I saw that you linked to a post by Kathy G in which she trashes you for not having the courtesy of linking her. Well, I thought you'd be interested to know that Kathy G actually stole her post about the Coase theorem from me (I write the Economics of Contempt blog that you commented on yesterday). I looked at my blog traffic last night, and I thought it was odd that there was someone from Chicago who had looked at my post about your use of the Coase theorem 5 times, because I really didn't think it was THAT interesting. And when I read Kathy G's post about the Coase theorem and saw that she used the exact same obscure Ronald Coase quote from 1981 that I used, it was a dead give-away. I looked at her traffic, and sure enough, she has the same IP address as the person who looked at my post about the Coase theorem 5 times yesterday. I find it hugely ironic that she would excoriate you for not linking to her on one day, and then lift the majority of her post from someone else without linking to them the next day!
I honestly don't care whether Kathy G links to me or not -- I had never even heard of her until today. I started writing my blog to amuse myself, not to gain internet recognition. And I'm not big on calling people out for their linking practices, since I'm a little unsure of the proper linking etiquette myself. But if you're going to attack someone for not following the proper linking etiquette, you should probably wait at least 24 hours before you steal a post from another blog without linking to it.
In a follow up email, he added:
Here's why I'm 99.99% positive Kathy G was the person from Chicago who looked at my post 5 times yesterday (other than the fact that she says on her blog that she's from Chicago). The person's IP address was [redacted], and that was also the IP address of the first two entries from Chicago I saw on Kathy G's blog this morning. That person found my post the first time by searching for "'preference maximization' and coase," and Kathy G harped on your use of the phrase "preference maximization." The third time that person looked at my post she had searched for "mcardle coase transaction."
Kathy G used the same two quotes from Coase that I did, including the really obscure 1981 quote. Of course, Kathy G also quoted Coase's next sentence from the 1981 essay, which I didn't, but that's probably because I LINKED TO the paper when I quoted it.
I wrote in my post: "The Coase theorem "dictates"? ... It's a neat trick, and a lot of libertarians I know use it, but it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the Coase theorem."
Kathy G wrote in her post: "But to argue that the Coase theorem "dictates" anything in the real world, as per McArdle, is to grossly misunderstand it."
I think that's more than enough to say it was her, but you're probably a better judge of this kind of thing.
Note to all new bloggers: this sort of thing is generally, at least in the blogging circles in which I travel, considered to be rather poor form. Worse, indeed, than accidentally neglecting to provide a link to someone you have already conceded to exist.
That doesn't excuse me for forgetting the link--I shouldn't be so careless on that score. But if you use substantial parts of another blogger's post, you should mention that you found it somewhere else. Direct paraphrase without even attempting attribution is regarded with less horror by bloggers than it is by English professors . . . but not all that much less horror. Especially since linking a source is a lot faster and easier than footnoting.
The answer to the question I posed in the title is, basically, "Always!" As Nick Gillespie noted yesterday, "there's no cost to acknowledging sources—if anything, it's a sign of erudition and plugs an author into a broader network of thinkers." Besides, as he also noted, if you go over the line you're very likely to be caught.
Obviously you should intentionally get in at least one argument a week with other bloggers for cross marketing purposes, but only with bloggers that link. Ignore the non-linkers so you won't give them free publicity.
On a different note, linking is also good because it helps create the "web link" structure thats used by search engines to rank pages. Its usually more difficult to rank blog pages because of their relative lack of inter-links compared to the rest of the web.
After you're through arguing with Kathy G, you should ramp up your degree of difficulty and either go shoot some fish in a barrel or take some candy from a baby. I'd recommend the latter - far less messy in my experience.
Um, are you going to insist--multiple times, if necessary--that Kathy G link to your plagiarism post?
Coase's whole point was that the "Coase theorem" is unrealistic. He was trying to draw attention to transaction costs, and their significance. One of his two major articles is a claim that the very existence of the firm is because of transaction costs. If what you get from Coase is that it doesn't matter where you put baseline entitlements, you have missed the point entirely. What he is saying is that what is critical is enabling transactions.
I think that is an interesting and true point which you get from the Coase Theorem, but it's rare that anything that revolutionary (not to mention theoretically elegant), has a "whole point" which can be stated so briefly. They rarely give out the Nobel Prize for sentence fragments.
And JB, the point was not to get links for my posts--I'm quite happy with my traffic, and besides, Kathy G. has already graciously favored me with multiple links. I just wanted to return the favor, especially since it seemed so important to her that I do so. I do not expect this post to get even a single link from Kathy G., much less multiple ones.
Actually, what I find interesting in your email exchange with Economics of Contempt is his willingness to disclose his private web site traffic data about Kathy G.
I believe it violates a basic sense of privacy. As I do, I am sure that you find all kinds of interesting visitors to your site and interesting peviews. I'm sure that you felt, more than once, that such surfing habits on your site would make an interesting comment on the blog, but refrained because of privacy issues.
Albeit, "Kathy G" is not identified any more than "Economics of Contempt", we are all well aware that these a username can often be tracked down through a little internet detective work. Thus, username versus real name is no defense for disclosing private traffic data.
I must admit that there is a certain grim satisfaction in seeing someone caught in the act, especially when that act is hypocricy.
I don't have any opinion about Coase transactions or the relative merits or your or Kathy G's positions, but I think that her hypocricy on the linking issue has been well and truly exposed and I don't feel more than one seventh of an iota of sympathy for her.
Robert, this sort of thing has a long history on the web, and the convention says that if you violate web norms--for example, by ripping off someone's post without attribution--it's fair to publish the IP if that's how you discovered it. Google "Mary Rosh".
Obviously, I wouldn't randomly publish reader data; I'm extremely respectful of both reader and email privacy. But if you think someone has plagiarized your work, you're entitled to make the case--presumptive privacy does not protect misconduct. In this instance, I think the case is pretty good, so I published it.
Similarly, if a commenter were attempting to commit fraud, or stalking me or another commenter, or otherwise violating web norms, I would of course release their IP to the proper authorities. Web privacy is important, but bloggers are not priests.
I don't see why you can't summarize a Nobel Prize-worthy discovery can't be summarized in a sentence fragment. "Equivalence of mass and energy" or "wave-particle duality" come to mind. Obviously, knowing these phrases isn't the same as understanding the theory.
What I am objecting to is the implication that Coase came up with an abstract theory that turns out to have some empirical imperfections. The empirical imperfections were his focus. Economics had tended to abstract away from transaction costs. What Coase showed is that if it did that, it couldn't understand such basic things as the existence of business firms or externalities.
I must admit that there is a certain grim satisfaction in seeing someone caught in the act, especially when that act is hypocricy.
Really? Then you'll like this link.
I'm flattered by the notion that I engage in vast conspiracies to make my commenters look slightly silly. However, I'm afraid I didn't have time to edit the entry in question in order to fulfill my conspiratorial duties yesterday; if there had been an error, I would have taken the less interesting step of posting an update, like I usually do.
But in this case, I'm afraid the error was Frank's, not mine, despite his touching avowal that he never makes mistakes. As far as I can recall, I haven't touched that entry since it went up, and I'm pretty sure no one else has either. Moreover, what he's identified isn't even a mistake; even if he had been right, I probably wouldn't have bothered to update the post, much less surreptitiously edit it.
If someone really wants to pursue the matter, and can tell me what log file to request from our IT people, I'll be happy to throw up a screen shot (with IP addresses redacted, of course.) But a quick tour of the way I respond to other, actually embarrassing errors on other posts should illustrate the unlikeliness of his claims.
Of course, a much easier way to resolve the question is for a reader who subscribes to the blog via RSS to check their feed--if I edited the post, the original should still be in their reader. Anyone want to post a screen shot?
One of his two major articles is a claim that the very existence of the firm is because of transaction costs. - Pithlord
Huh! No kidding. Well, there you go. In all the previous discussion I've seen online of this issue, I don't think that had come through.
As an inveterate freelancer beginning to find that I am freaking sick of filing Schedule C's and getting reimbursed for expenses rather than just putting them on a company credit card, I'm thinking maybe I need to read this Coase guy after all.
I can confirm the RSS feed included the word "largely", though I think the argument over the distinction is rather petty.
The statement "chemical fertilizer is made from natural gas" wouldn't exactly rule out the notion that there are other ingredients used.
Anyway, will send screenshot via email.
Geoff, if you're willing, I'd love a copy of that. (I put the addy in my name, just drop the http.)
Megan,
Thanks for your update. I get it.
My guess, you still have a shot at priesthood, if they ever allow women.
I guess I'm just big on privacy. Short of tracking down someone who is going to give me physical harm, I doubt I would ever reveal an IP address. And there's a Wall Street research analyst who pretty much copies a lot of what I write with just a few cosmetic changes!! He is doing so from my new blog and has done so in the past from previous writings.
I came across another blogger who posted an entire article of mine without referencing me at all.
Maybe the FBI is having trouble nailing people without all kinds of internet snooping, but I'm going to have some fun with the crooks messing with me and I won't need an IP address to do it. In fact, I don't even know their IP addresses.