Writing Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for the craft of professional writing, including fiction, non-fiction, technical, scholarly, and commercial writing. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
I'm not sure if this is the correct exchange group to ask this, but I came across this article, Alternet_Paul_Krugman_Article, in which it basically just quotes Paul Krugman's NY Times column word for word without adding any additional information or context.
Is this common practice? Is this frowned upon? It is basically making a blogpost using someone else's work so I feel like it may be plagiarism even though the original author is attributed. Is my interpretation too conservative?
Copying someone else's work wholesale, without attribution or compensation is plagarism/theft, while quoting or summarizing small pieces of a person's work with proper attribution is fair use. In between the two can be a gray area.
I am not a lawyer, so I can't tell you exactly where the line lies, but I'd say this is probably arguably fair use. It cites the original article and author, and doesn't include so much of the original text of it that you wouldn't look up the original article if you're interested.
Aggregated digests of other sources is an old practice, predating the internet. The work of the new "author" is summarizing the source and pulling out the relevant quotes. Clearly, this could be done in a predatory or unethical way, but it has legitimate uses as well --being noticed by the right aggregator can make a person's career.
