Great news! Glad to see the Post is finally taking a modicum of responsibility for their content and role in disseminating information to the public. As others have noted, the Post's initial response to this situation echoed the way they mishandled Nathan's very legitimate complaints about plagiarism and inadaquate source attribution. Hopefully these repeated drubbings will improve their journalists' practices. Best, Marie _______________ Marie Hicks, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of History of Technology Lewis Department of the Humanities Illinois Institute of Technology Chicago, IL mhicks1@iit.edu twitter: @histoftech www.mariehicks.net On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Thomas Haigh <thaigh@computer.org> wrote:
Hello everyone,
Good news from the email battle. The Washington Post's Ombudsman has posted a lengthy and detailed retraction of his previous column. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/omblog/post/origins-of-e-mail-my-mea-cul pa/2012/03/01/gIQAiOD5kR_blog.html
This will also make my life easier, as I no longer have to try to present the actual history of email, correct the Post's errors in the original story and Ombusman blog, and debunk Ayyadurai all in one article. We can shift the focus to the real history, which is ultimately more productive.
Best wishes,
Tom
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members