Tag Archives: TechCrunch

Episode 21: Nobody enjoys plagiarism

Staff and student perceptions of plagiarism

We kick off the show by discussing plagiarism and how it’s handled at the college level. Apparently the process is long and arduous and no one comes out a winner.

We also discuss the state of writing in college today. Most students cannot write well coming out of high school, and this is causing headaches for college professors. Jeremy is a fan of one high school’s new plan to make a student rewrite any paper that has five or more errors in it.

We then get into how Facebook is becoming the driver’s license of the Internet. So many sites require you to have a Facebook account. Is this a good thing?

We discuss a lot this week. It’s a jam packed show and I hope you enjoy.

Listen to this week’s show:


Download the MP3

Show notes:

Facebook as the driver’s license of the Internet

Kevin Zieber succinctly summed up the growing resentment of requiring a Facebook login to comment around the Web (or to get special privileges).

Want to comment on TechCrunch? You better have a Facebook account. Want to be a trusted commenter on The New York Times’s website? Not only do you need to leave great comments — which is a good idea — but you also need to tie your Facebook account to your nytimes.com account.

Some commenters have expressed that being highly regarded by fellow nytimes.com commenters should be enough to become a trusted commenter. Is using your real name a requirement for being trusted? What if you work in a sensitive industry?

I’m not sure yet what to make of the Facebook requirement for nytimes.com. The Times already has good comments and this may encourage even better comments. But it does leave out some people who can’t comment under their real names.

I’m firmly against TechCrunch and other sites requiring Facebook for comments. That goes too far in my book. What if someone doesn’t even have a Facebook account?

Should Facebook, a private social network with serial privacy concerns, be the driver’s license of the Internet?

To be clear, there are merits of having people use their Facebook accounts to comment. Most people use their real names with their Facebook accounts, and by requiring a real name, a website should get higher quality comments than your average site without active community management.

Many of the sites with the best user communities, however, do not require Facebook to comment. Slashdot famously has one of the best user communities on the Internet, and uses a user voting system to encourage good comments. The new tech site The Verge doesn’t require Facebook either and is quickly building a good user community by allowing users to recommend and flag comments. Great comments are highlighted by stars.

We do allow people on the Interchange Project to comment using their Twitter and Facebook accounts because it’s an easy way for people to login in, comment and establish a pan-Web commenting profile. However, we also allow people to comment anonymously. There are some people who simply cannot comment with their real names.

Why can’t they? They may work in sensitive industries. They may be afraid of reprisals from their work. You certainly won’t get whistle blowers by requiring someone to use their real names.

And thus, we won’t require people to use their real names and link to their social media accounts. We think it’s great if you do, but we also see the value in anonymity and pseudo-anonymity.

Requiring Facebook for commenting is a lazy way to weed out (some) trolls and nastiness. And it works, to an extent. But the ultimate goal is not just to weed out trolls, racists and other bad commenters, but to encourage and inspire great comments.

Bloggers such as Eric Berger didn’t get great user communities by requiring Facebook commenting. They did it be being active in comments and encouraging good comments. It’s called community management.

Allowing people to comment with Facebook, Twitter and other services is convenient and should be encouraged. Requiring that users use Facebook or Twitter to comment goes too far in my book.

Here is some advice on how to build a strong user community without demanding a Facebook driver’s license:

I highly suggest you check out Mathew Ingram’s thoughts on this subject as well.

The most fascinating stuff on TechCrunch is about TechCrunch

The whole AOL/HuffPo/TechCrunch has reached Defcon Something-Really-Bad:

TechCrunch is on the precipice. As soon as tomorrow, Mike may be thrown out of the company he founded. Or he may not. No one knows. And if he is, he will be replaced by — well, again, no one knows. No one knows much of anything. Certainly no one at TechCrunch. This site is about to change forever and we’re in the total fucking dark. I’ve been able to piece together little bits of information here and there, and it’s not looking good. Hence, this post.

By now, if you read TechCrunch, you likely know about the nuclear situation that has exploded over the past several days. Mike unveiled an investing entity known as the “CrunchFund” with full AOL support — so much support, mind you, that they’re the largest backers of the fund — only to have his legs kicked out from under him due to what can only be described as nonsensical political infighting and really poor communication. To make matters worse, some Journalists (with a big “J” and even bigger senses of entitlement) have proceeded to pile on, despite having no real knowledge — at all — of the way TechCrunch actually works. And now here we are.

TechCrunch needs to be made into a reality TV show.