Over the weekend, following my coverage of the Supernova conference, Cory Doctorow, a contributor to Boing Boing, picked up on Fast Company's Web linking policy. Egged on by a reader, he criticized our out-of-date linking policy, which once requested that people fax in a notification form before they linked to our Web site. That entry catalyzed about 20 similar posts elsewhere on the Web in which writers poked fun at Fast Company's "spectacular cluelessness." And the feedback emails began to trickle in.
Correspondents waxed between constructive criticism and profane inanity in their email reactions. One writer claimed the entire Internet is public domain. Another indicated that our linking policy made his head explode. (Gosh, I hope not!) And one said that they would never link to our Web site again. Those were the less florid ones.
Thankfully, Anil Dash considered the situation -- and the resulting exchange -- with a slightly more level head. In a blog entry posted Sunday, Anil largely agreed with Cory's entry criticizing Fast Company -- but not the way the wider Web community took up the call for discussion and action. Praising Fast Company for many of our "clueful" practices -- online and offline -- Anil recommended that people take their criticisms to the source before opening up a flame war in a vacuum.
Regardless of whether that happened -- it hasn't -- the Fast Company team has discussed the online dialogue and additional reader feedback, reconsidered our out-of-date linking policy, and amended it. It might not be good enough for Cory yet, but I think it's an improvement. We'll continue to refine our Web services and practices.
This is an instructive example of some of the challenges and opportunities that can arise as more organizations -- not just individuals -- begin blogging. With increased visibility and transparency comes interactivity and responsibility. And if you ever have a question, want to share an idea, or need to clarify something, don't hesitate to contact me directly.
Related Stories: | Topics:Management, customer service, Fast Company Magazine, Cory Doctorow, Anil Dash |
Email
Digg
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Buzz Up!
LinkedIn
Recent Comments | 3 Total
June 29, 2004 at 8:55pm by jeff
your linking policy still prohibits framing of content, yet you have an RSS feed which by it's very nature is framed in some 3rd party client.
It seems that your linking policy still has some catching up to do. Perhaps it's better to not have a policy at all, especially considering that it's largely unenforceable on it's face.
June 30, 2004 at 3:22pm by Heath Row
I believe that's a different issue, Jeff. Framing in this instance is similar to that involved in the TotalNews and Futuredontics cases. Pulling an RSS feed into an aggregator application isn't the same thing.
July 2, 2004 at 8:32pm by jsp
While I think FC should be commended for their responsiveness on this issue, I still have problems with the policy (as amended.)
First, I'm not sure what legal doctrine you believe would make this policy enforceable or binding. There's no mechanism to require readers agree to terms, and to my knowledge the passive "Your use of this site signifies your agreement to the _ToS_" approach has never been upheld in court.
Still more importantly, the amended policy shows a profound arrogance in its attempt to dictate who can link to articles and for what purpose. I assume FC would never try to prevent me from saying "The article on page 22 is total crap", so why do you think you have the right to approve my usage in an electronic context -- and for that matter, what precisely constitutes an "impermissible purpose"?
Frames prevention is a technical problem that has an easy technical solution (a bit of JavaScript.) In fact, there also technological solutions for the other problems, such as, if necessary, providing additional messages to people who come from certain links. Why not make use of those tools, instead of this policy?
Really, what problem does this policy solve? And why can't you solve it without resorting to an attitude that twists logic to the point that I can share your street address, phone number, e-mail address, and (printed) magazine article location with anyone without your permission or review, but a URL is knowledge I can share only while I remain in your good graces.
It's simply unacceptable.