出版与作家生涯2021buzzfeednews.com
Snopes 联合创始人以假名撰写抄袭文章
Co-founder of Snopes was writing plagiarized articles under a fake name
导读
BuzzFeed News 调查称 Snopes 联合创始人在假名之下发表抄袭文章，引发外界对事实核查媒体可信度、署名伦理与历史记录透明度的讨论。对写作者来说，这篇值得读，因为它提醒我们：结论正确不等于论据可靠，引用、署名、更正和利益披露都是写作伦理的一部分。
可以直接用的写作要点
- 01
引用事实时不仅要保证结论正确，每个支撑论据也要经得起专家推敲，否则会削弱整篇文章的可信度。
- 02
使用他人内容必须明确署名和来源，伪造作者身份或洗稿会构成严重的伦理问题。
- 03
保留可追溯的版本与存档，不隐藏历史页面，方便读者和同行核查。
- 04
报道争议时披露相关方的利益冲突和自身立场，避免“以黑打黑”式的讽刺。
HN 评论精选
支持结论的论据也必须准确，机构面对善意更正的态度会直接影响公信力。
我很想喜欢 Snopes，但不确信他们权衡证据的方式。比如他们辟谣玛丽莲·梦露有六根脚趾时，曾把“如果切除一根脚趾，人基本要重新学走路，因为平衡会被彻底打乱”当作事实之一。我妻子是足病医生，我问她健康成年人切除小脚趾后恢复如何，她说基本就是等伤口愈合，然后正常生活；即使切除大脚趾也没那么严重，更别说一根长在侧面的退化第六趾，切掉后根本注意不到。我写信给 Snopes，说我同意他们的结论，但这个支撑事实按专家意见不成立。他们回复大意是：你居然相信她有六根脚趾，真是白痴，然后文章照旧。从那以后我就对 Snopes 持怀疑态度。
kstrauser查看英文原文
I really want to like Snopes, but I'm not convinced that they weigh evidence correctly. For example, they debunked the myth that Marilyn Monroe had 6 toes. First, I don't believe that she did. Or even care, for that matter. But at the time, one of their "facts" was that if she'd had a toe removed, she'd basically have to learn to walk all over again because it would throw her balance completely off. (Note: the article no longer includes this fact. It did at one time, though.) However, my wife's a podiatrist. Part of her job is amputating parts of feet when they're damaged or infected beyond repair. I asked her what it's like for an otherwise healthy adult to recover from a pinky toe amputation, and she said it's basically a matter of waiting for the wound site to heal and then they continue with life as normal. Contrary to popular belief, even a big toe amputation isn't that disruptive. A vestigial 6th toe hanging off to the side? You'd never notice it was gone. I emailed Snopes and said hey, while I agree with your conclusion, this particular supporting fact is invalid according to an expert in the field. They replied basically that I was an idiot for believing she had 6 toes, and they left the article as-is. That's not at all what I thought, and I actually agreed with their conclusion. I just didn't like that they were using incorrect facts to support it, and especially didn't like that they reacted poorly to a well-meant correction. Since then, I've been skeptical of Snopes. Although I think they're probably right most of the time, that left a bad taste in my mouth. Are other people sending them corrections about their own fields of expertise and having them rejected? I have no way of knowing.
事实核查机构不应隐藏历史记录，可追溯性关乎可信度。
Marchionni 正在重新评估 Mikkelson 多年前做出的决定：不让 Snopes 的报道被存档到 Wayback Machine；她有权做任何必要改变。这不是最紧迫的问题，但把本应作为事实记录的內容从 Wayback Machine 上藏起来，至少可以说非常有问题。
danso查看英文原文
> Marchionni is reevaluating decisions Mikkelson made years earlier to not allow Snopes stories to be archived on the Wayback Machine and is empowered to make any changes necessary. Not the most immediate important thing, but hiding content from the Wayback Machine that is purported to be factual record is very problematic, to say the least
指责抄袭时也应审视自身内容生产中的搬运和“增长黑客”行为。
如今所有现代媒体公司都是靠这类不光彩的“增长黑客”手段起家的。难道没人觉得讽刺吗：BuzzFeed 指责另一家媒体公司使用这种手段？BuzzFeed 多年来的增长策略就是把 Reddit 热门帖子的内容复制粘贴，做成带点击诱饵标题的“清单体”，再喂给 Facebook。那难道不也是抄袭吗？
pembrook查看英文原文
All modern media companies today have been built by using these kinds of shady "growth hacks." Doesn't anybody see the irony of Buzzfeed calling out a fellow media company for using such tactics? Buzzfeed's entire growth strategy for years was copy-pasting content from trending reddit threads and turning them into "listicles" with clickbait headlines, then feeding them into Facebook. Was that not also plagiarism?
报道可能属实，但资金来源和利益冲突也需要被披露和审视。
值得一提的是，Snopes 背后的 Mikkelson 夫妇经历过混乱的离婚，他们各实体之间的诉讼至今仍在继续。这里的抄袭问题看起来相当清楚，但调查的资助方很可能也有自己的算盘。
Clewza313查看英文原文
FWIW, the Mikkelsons (couple originally behind the site) had a messy divorce and the lawsuits between their various entities continue to this day. The plagiarism here does seem pretty clear cut, but it's likely the funders of investigation have their own axe to grind. https://www.npr.org/2017/07/26/539576135/fact-checking-website-snopes-is-fighting-to-stay-alive
同类还值得读
写书：值得吗？
Writing a book: is it worth it?
Martin Kleppmann（《设计数据密集型应用》作者）复盘写书到底值不值：金钱回报低、耗时极长，但带来了可见度、信任和职业机会。
出版与作家生涯2020 · 642 分 · 287 评4 条写作要点编辑精选写书并不是个好主意
Writing books is not really a good idea
这篇文章讨论靠写书谋生的现实难度，评论区从版税数学、收入预期和写作目标三个角度补充了作者视角。
出版与作家生涯2021 · 577 分 · 609 评4 条写作要点编辑精选如何自助出版一本书：实用资源清单
How to self-publish a book: A handy list of resources
这是一份关于「如何自助出版一本书」的资源清单帖，涵盖从编辑、排版到 ISBN、销售渠道的实操工具与花费。
出版与作家生涯2018 · 558 分 · 88 评4 条写作要点编辑精选我自助出版一本Ruby on Rails书，赚了7万美元
How I Made $70k Self-Publishing a Book about Ruby on Rails
这是一篇 Ruby 开发者自述：他把一套 Rails 性能课程（书＋视频＋答疑）自出版，一年毛收入约 7 万美元，并总结了选题、定价、营销等经验。
出版与作家生涯2017 · 539 分 · 175 评4 条写作要点编辑精选石黑一雄警告年轻作家因“恐惧”而自我审查
Sir Kazuo Ishiguro warns of young authors self-censoring out of 'fear'
石黑一雄提醒年轻作者因“恐惧”而自我审查，即这条帖子讨论的核心。
出版与作家生涯2021 · 396 分 · 641 评5 条写作要点编辑精选