Comments 7

  1. Logging in via my Twitter, lol.
    I usually include the person’s Twitter handle in the first tweet, then just the conference hashtag after that. If multiple speakers on a panel, I’ll include their initials so people know who the comments come from. If a single speaker, not necessary. I will note (usually in parens) my personal comments to set them aside from the speaker.

    But the idea that it is plagiarism to live-tweet a conference session and not include the Twitter handle of the speaker in EVERY tweet is over reaching, and not feasible in 140 characters and the time allotted.

    I also agree that a speaker should include their Twitter handle as a footer on the slides if they expect the program to be live Tweeted (as a program on social media would).

  2. heather_morse  I agree. The use of the word plagiarism is overboard, and definitely not a reaction I would allow myself to have over a situation like this.

  3. Cool post, Nancy. I agree with every word you said and I think it’s great advice, but I went off in a different, but related, direction.
    I’m a graduate of one of those schools known for throwing students out the door without a second thought for any failure to properly cite anything that smelled remotely like something someone else had said or thought, ever, in the history of the world. And I’m a former journalist who worked at a major daily, and the child of a journalist who was recognized nationally and by his peers internationally for his integrity (probably how I got my gig, since I was reminded regularly). And I worked in law firms and the legal industry for more years than I care to mention, so I tend to err on the side of CYA. That’s where I’m coming from.
    Plagiarism? No. It’s not just overboard, it’s wrong.

    The context provided by the conference hashtag makes it pretty clear – or at the very least, clearly open to interpretation – that the content is not original to the person who is passing it along. Quite simply, it lacks any element of attempting to represent the idea or statement as that of the person who tweeted it. 

    Is it bad form? Well, certainly *including* the speaker’s handle is incredibly good form. But social media etiquette is evolving. If it wasn’t easy for me to do – either because of the 140 character limitation or because I didn’t know or have access to the speaker’s twitter handle – at this point in time, I’d be comfortable tweeting without it.

    As someone who might want to know the source of the content, I’d be a little bummed not to have it, but I’d ask or find it if I liked it enough to engage or pursue, or if I had a need for the offering. Presumably most people on twitter who attend professional conferences could manage that. But if anyone has a complaint, it’s the tweeter’s followers.

    I can appreciate that most of us speak at these things to help grow our professional brand and maybe, hopefully, generate some business. Unless it’s as a keynote, it’s certainly not for the pay. I’m a consultant now, and that’s a big deal for me. But getting uppity about credit seems to me to be only slightly smarter than feeding the trolls. Social media may be trying to commercialize itself for its own reasons, but it is, after all, SOCIAL media – not COMMERCIAL media. 

    More generally, I remember well and am grateful to every single person who “gave” me a good idea, help or advice over the years without expectation of credit or benefit. I’m well aware that, in many ways, my career was built on their shoulders. I’ve quoted them, hired them,  referred clients to them, endorsed them and bought them dinner.
    With them as my models, I’d rather grow a personal brand that includes generosity, rather than as someone with a grasping need for credit or a chance to pitch or open a dialogue with everyone who might have heard of me. It’s just so not who I want to be and, in my experience, it just makes growing a practice harder. 

    But that’s me.

  4. lisa_dutton Thank you for sharing all of these thoughts with me/us. You should have written this blog post because your perspective is born of experiences that bring a great deal of credibility to this discussion. I particularly like how you put this: “Well, certainly *including* the speaker’s handle is incredibly good form.” You are right.This is all evolving, and to accuse people of doing things the wrong way when their intentions were purely helpful is premature. Thanks for taking the time to visit and to reply, Lisa.

  5. Pingback: Want attribution? Make it easy. | The Legal Watercooler

  6. Pingback: Twitter Thursday: The Do’s and Don’ts of Live-Tweeting | SOCIAL IN THE 206

  7. Pingback: The Do’s and Don’ts of Live-Tweeting

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *