Atrios argues that “you link it, you own it” is an “unwritten but well-understood blog issue.” (Referenced in comments on my post below.) Not in my neck of the Web. I own my own words. I don’t own yours, and I certainly don’t own yours just because I happen to link to your page.
I guess that just shows you how tough it is to generalize about the blogosphere. Here’s the thing: Linking is all about context, right? What words do you link on, what do you say about the site you’re linking to. If I just posted a link in my blog here, without comment, to, say, an anti-semitic Aryan Nation site, that would leave my readers at the least scratching their heads and quite likely thinking I’d lost my marbles. But if I were posting a long commentary on the subject and referring to such a site as an example of a particular kind of right-wing rhetoric, for instance, I’d link to it. I wouldn’t “own it.” If I didn’t link to it, (a) I wouldn’t be using the Web to its full extent to document my argument, and (b) I’d just be making my life hard on my readers — I’ve got the URL already, why should I make them go to Google?
The context for this discussion is not experienced bloggers, who tend to understand how and when to link because it’s in their blood, but non-Web journalists and editors moving online who get their heads in a tizzy because linking is new to them and they don’t really understand it. Telling them “You link it, you own it” is tantamount to telling them, “Go back into your holes, don’t even try to link, because once you start linking we’re going to hold you responsible not only for everything you publish but for everything everyone you link to publishes.” This is a good way of shutting down the Web’s giant conversation, not opening it up.
Furthermore, the “you link it, you own it” principle would spell legal disaster for bloggers if it became widely accepted. It’s just a bad meme, all around.
Here’s what Atrios might be trying to say — or rather, here’s a reworded version of his principle that I could get behind: “You link it, you ought to check it out.” Say you stumble upon some crazy rumor about, er, a politician’s sex life, on a site you don’t know much about. You could, in ascending order of rectitude, do the following: (1) Instantly publish a link to it without comment; (2) publish the link but say that you have no idea if it’s true; (3) publish the link only after you have satisfied yourself that the rumor’s original publisher is trustworthy; or (4) get out your notepad, pick up the phone and try to verify the rumor yourself. Different bloggers will do different things here, and their choices will affect their credibility. Those choices will also, to be sure, affect how widely they’re read. There’s a reason Matt Drudge has such an unmatched record for high page views and low trust!
POSTSCRIPT, Thursday A.M.: Atrios clarifies with some good points, and I think we’re pretty much in agreement at this point. The following seems to be the practice that he’s focused on, and I imagine it is more common in his particular realm of the blogosphere than in mine: “If I link to something saying ‘go read this’ then I’ve put my stamp of approval on it. It’s bullshit to come back two hours later and say ‘uh, well, I didn’t write it, I just linked to it… not my problem.'” The point here is, it’s the “Go read this” that’s the endorsement, not the link itself. A small point, maybe, but these distinctions matter…
Post Revisions:
There are no revisions for this post.