In my previous logs, I have discussed topics such as:
Nose to the grindstone:
You will subjugate the unknown beings on other planets, who may still be living in the primitive condition of freedom, to the beneficent yoke of reason. If they fail to understand that we bring them mathematically infallible happiness, it will be our duty to compel them to be happy. We, Yevgeny Zamyatin
The log is your friend. The log can sit quietly. The log can burn. The log can provide warmth. The log can be very cold. The log can be filled with gold. The log is your friend.
Lotsa people be dissing the daylogs. It has very often been in vogue to bash the daylogs and denigrate those who make use of them. Lesser humans. Weak noders. Birdbrains on acid who think everyone gives a shit about the fact that they spent $22.56 at the grocery store on diet soft drinks and the bag boy looked at them funny. Why don't we do away with them? Why do we allow them to be included in a person's node count? Why don't we make them "unvotable?" The snickers and back alley accusations make it all the way around the world. Everyone wants fairness and equity and a perfect little world that conforms to their concept of reality, justice and righteousness.
There ain't no justice, WalMart brain. There is just this and, for the moment, nothing more. Words on an imaginary page broadcast to you through computer magic onto a screen that is slowly eating away your vision. This is what your science has done to us. Bastards. Now, step up to the holy altar and place an offering. Prepare for judgment.
There are those who abuse daylogs and drag them down into the horrible swamps of Hell. They see them as an easy place to dump a couple of random thoughts about nothing in particular so they can get closer to having the right number of nodes to jump up to the next level. Hey, guess what, you don't get a blowjob when you move up a level. It doesn't mean all that much. Your soul is more important. There are so many damned fine daylogs out there and you could spend a day winding your way through a couple of months worth and find some pretty spectacular reading. Some understand that often what they have written isn't quite the kind of thing that deserves its own node or fits into an existing one. It is worth writing and worth reading, but perhaps it is a fleeting moment. A daylog brings in many readers, for it is easily accessed and discovered at its time of posting. It might be topical, dealing with present day issues and perhaps won't stand the test of time. It lives in the moment. It is a fire in the bushes.
So, you think you're ready to write a daylog? Good for you. Let's take a look at some of the possible reasons why you might be feeling this way...
So, you say you are a "serious" noder. Yes, we know, "serious noders" don't do daylogs. What is a "serious noder" anyway? A noder who takes E2 "seriously" is one who knows the rightful place of all kinds of writeups. There are certain writeups that belong in daylogs. They may be as good and possibly better than other writeups with their own titles. They are often much, much worse. There are crappy daylogs. There are brilliant daylogs. There are a lot of good daylogs somewhere in between. The bottom line is that even a daylog should be a well written piece of writing worthy of the time spent by others to read it. It might make them laugh. It could make them cry. It could touch them in super special ways. It could shock them and it could piss them right the fuck off. These are the things that good writing does to people. Not everything is "just the facts, ma'am." Writers write. They write constantly. Sometimes a thought or an idea needs a jump start. The train of thought needs to be focused. A daylog can help you find where you lost your place. A lot of daylogs are so much more. Use daylogs wisely. They are your friend. They beckon to you. People are listening. People are reading your wurds on the other side of a computer monitor screen on the other side of the world. Remember to consider them when you weave your wurds. Make it count.
Information! Yes, I have been known to /msg people and tell them that a work they submitted that was nuked from orbit would have made a good daylog. For whatever reason, this is seen all too often as an insult. "Daylogs? I'm better than that." Pull it together captain. I'm making a positive suggestion. Come into the daylog garden. Let us upgrade the neighborhood. Okay, let's dance. Someone cue the music.
I blame National Novel Writing Month for my total editor slackitude this fine November. I'm only noding this right now because I'm a day ahead and my so-called "plot" or lack thereof hasn't been going anywhere for the past few thousand words. Ugh.
Update 24 November 2002: Word from on high says "firmlink overkill is bad", and the following are examples of what NOT to do. The excessive links have been removed, writeups moved to appropriate locations, and my hose-up is duly noted here for all who want to point and laugh.
As I messaged Frankie some time last month, "As a content editor, I could just fix all the typos I came across; it'd probably be quicker than /msging users. But I like to think that telling people to fix stuff helps them learn to edit themselves better. Or something." Like it says on my homenode, I don't suggest corrections to writeups that aren't worth improving. If I /msg you with a correction, it means, "Hey, this is wrong, please fix it and give your writeup a double-check because I could have missed typos since I probably only read it once through." Now you know. That said, the exception to my "messages for typos" exchange program are fled users, although I do usually message them to report any changes I make, just in case. Here's me leaving big tracks, too:
It looks as if I'm only going to be logging my editorial activities when I've got a bee in my bonnet about something.
This month's bee: E2 Copyright Violations: Same Song, Second Verse
We all love songs. Or at least, all of us love certain songs. Of course the quality of the lyrics varies; some groups' verses are beautiful, and can stand on their own as very good poetry. Other lyrics, when taken out of their musical context, sound like the rambling of an addled three-year-old.
Regardless of their quality, I have to say that it's a beautiful thing to be able to look up said lyrics, to be able to determine that Mick Jagger was not singing "I was raised by a two-headed lesbian" but was instead singing "I was raised by a toothless, bearded hag".
It's useful.
It's cool.
And it's against the law.
And ultimately, that just ain't cool any more. Stuff like this is why the Web and those who publish on it have such a bad reputation in some quarters. And I say E2 should become something better than that.
A lot of us editors have turned a blind eye to the rampant copyright violation involved in the noding of unexplicated lyrics. We've been discouraging it, but that's as far as it's gone. Everybody's doing it, we tell ourselves. The fans love it, and who's it hurting? The music industry megacorporations? Who cares. We'll leave it all up and let the users have their fun and worry about it when the lawyers come a' knockin'.
But posting a bare, unexplicated lyric is a clear violation of intellectual copyright laws. It's not a technicality, not a grey area: it's against the law.
Posting lyrics in the context of a good analytical writeup, however, is fair use, and can be very, very cool. dannye's I Can't Make You Love Me is a good example of how to handle this; I'm sure you can find other examples.
Posting public domain lyrics, such as those of old blues or folk songs, is legal. So is posting lyrics for bands such as The Grateful Dead who have given reuse permissions to the world at large. Posting copyrighted lyrics after you have gained explicit permission from the copyright holder is entirely cool.
So, if you've got permission, tacit or explicit, you should always make a note of this on your writeup. And even if you have permission, annotating said lyrics in an interesting, edifying manner is a much better way to go.
Speaking as an editor and content producer, I can no longer in good conscience turn a blind eye to the copyright problem of lyrics posted here at E2.
It's not enough to let it go on and wait for the lawyers to find us on their own. Tacitly allowing the violation of others' intellectual rights while expecting people to respect your rights is hypocritical at best.
I can't speak for other editors, but I'm going to start nuking unexplicated lyrics nodes, starting with fled users. And since I have a limited amount of time to spend here at E2 these days, it'll take me a while to get around to auditing active users' accounts.
If you have lyrics nodes up, make 'em right in the eyes of the law.
If any of you have any questions about this etc., please feel free to message me. I really, seriously, am not doing this to be a wet blanket squelching the fires of noders' musical enthusiasm.
Sunday, November 24, 2002 2:49:xx update:
dem bones says re Editor Log: November 2002: Actually, I'm sorry - but I can't have you doing this. I understand how you feel but the copyright issue is our biggest one and if we tackle it it will have to be on all fronts. As it is now we operate under DMCA protection... Roninspoon says: Bones and I have spoken at length about this. It's weird, and anti-intuitive, but we're following the word of the law by not removing them in mass. I feel your pain, believe me. I'm one of the biggest champions of copyright and slayers of plagiarism round these parts. I know it's strange, but it's the law. If we formulate a policy, then we are liable for all content and open to litigation. If we form no policy, we are protected by the DMCA and we simply remove those nodes that CP holders complain of.
dem bones says re Editor Log: November 2002: Actually, I'm sorry - but I can't have you doing this. I understand how you feel but the copyright issue is our biggest one and if we tackle it it will have to be on all fronts. As it is now we operate under DMCA protection...
Roninspoon says: Bones and I have spoken at length about this. It's weird, and anti-intuitive, but we're following the word of the law by not removing them in mass. I feel your pain, believe me. I'm one of the biggest champions of copyright and slayers of plagiarism round these parts. I know it's strange, but it's the law. If we formulate a policy, then we are liable for all content and open to litigation. If we form no policy, we are protected by the DMCA and we simply remove those nodes that CP holders complain of.
The Management hath spoken, it appears. The official policy is, there is no official policy. But remember, kids - plagiarism gets deleted, period.
However, if you want Lucy-not-speaking-for-management to benevolently smile upon your work: if you've noded unexplicated lyrics, do the right thing. Rewrite your nodes to adhere to fair use. I and The Spirit of Copyright Past thank you.
11/27/02 Update:
I was in communication with most excellent poet Mark Strand. Turns out that, until a few days ago, he didn't know that several dozen of his poems were here at E2. Nobody had asked his permission; he asked that his poems be removed from the site. I have removed all that I could find.
Ask permission before you repost other people's work. Period. Most writers have webpages these days; if they don't, most poets are faculty someplace and thus have faculty email addresses. Those that have neither home pages nor faculty gigs have publishers, and most every publishing company I know of has a website with contact addresses. Don't be lazy; lazy can get E2 sued.
So, without further ado:
Renamed and/or reparented thus far:
printable version chaos
Everything2 Help
