Hyperreferencing not Hyperlinking!. Hyperreferencing.

Found this link (via a Wired article on NPR's linking policy) to some writing Tim Berners-Lee did about the nature of links:

Normal hypertext links do not of themselves imply that the document linked to is part of, is endorsed by, or endorses, or has related ownership or distribution terms as the document linked from.

So why call it a link? I wonder if this tendancy for the unclued to imply copyright violation or some other tangible impact by hyperlinking comes from the very word itself. To link, in the traditional sense, implies some physical connection or tie. From my copy of Websters:

link vt: To couple or connect by or as if by a link.

If hyperlinks had been called hyperreferences (which is what they are) from the start perhaps the widespread misunderstanding about the nature of linking would be a little less pervasive.

[High Context] [Curiouser and curiouser!]

This presents a good wrap to the noise around NPR and its efforts to navigate between their view of the world and the way the technology actually operates.

2:20:31 PM •  • comment  

Links and NPR: Two Ships Passing In The Night.

I'm going to highlight NPR's revised linking policy once and (hopefully) only once. As Cory notes over at Boing Boing and as David notes over at TeleRead, NPR still doesn't seem to "get it." Apparently the form for formally requesting to link is gone, but they still reserve the right to withdraw the permission they aren't formally giving anymore.

Here's how I think the folks at NPR should think of linking: news sources. When NPR does a story about any given subject and they interview someone, it doesn't imply an endorsement. Their reporters don't stop using quotes or audio excerpts because in a sense, that's journalistic linking. You get to hear that person's words from the horse's mouth, in context. And that's all linking is - providing a direct route to the horse's mouth. A linker might add commentary around the link, but the link itself points back to the original without the commentary. Therefore, no endorsement.

So if the NPR staff takes a moment to think about linking in that context, they'll realize how unrealistic and restrictive their policy is. Imagine NPR without external sources for their stories. It's difficult to do because it would pretty much become talk radio. Better yet, imagine an interviewee in an NPR story calling them up after a segment airs and saying, "I disapprove of what you said, I don't endorse your story, and I demand that you take it down from your site immediately." All of a sudden, NPR calls journalistic smackdown on the interviewee, cries ethics, and refuses. As they should - no self-respecting capital "J" Journalism outfit should ever rescind a story because the subject doesn't like it.

Same thing with the web. Why should bloggers or anyone else have to get sanction from NPR in order to link to the horse's mouth? The web without unrestricted linking is like NPR without external sources - it just doesn't work because it removes the very foundation upon which the service is built. It takes away the connectedness, context, and flow.

Hopefully NPR will eventually come to this realization, because all they're really going to do is waste their own time and resources tracking links, sanctioning links, and paying lawyers to send threatening letters, all the while becoming the butt of an ever-growing web joke meme. You can bet that every story about linking ever will refer to NPR and that it will become the poster child for web cluelessness.

I don't think that's the end of the horse NPR wants to be seen as.

[The Shifted Librarian]

Jenny's typically cogent observations about the NPR linking ploicy.

2:18:45 PM •  • comment  

NPR renews rotten linking policy -- again. NPR has revised its linking "policy." The revision seems like an improvement, but it's not -- it's just as bad as it ever was. NPR still maintains that people who link to NPR's site require permission -- the new policy merely conditionally grants that permission.

I'll say it again: The most harmful lie you can tell about the Web is that permission is a prerequisite for linking. There is no copyright interest in controlling how people reference your work.

The most ironic thing about this is that NPR maintains that the rationale for it is to maintain "the highest journalistic ethics and standards." Journalism is about telling the comprehensive and accurate truth. Here we have NPR knowingly promulgating a destructive myth, something not borne out by copyright law or practice.

People who respect NPR's journalistic integrity may be duped into believing this harmful lie (as was one friend who emailed me to tell me that NPR wouldn't have this policy if there wasn't some debate about whether there's a copyright interest in links). If they succeed in convincing their audience that there's an interest in controlling links, we don't have any basis for the Web.

I'm sending fresh mail to Jeffrey Dvorkin, NPR's ombudsman, to tell him what I think of this. I recommend that you do the same. I will also be withholding my donation from NPR until this policy is reversed. Much as I hold public radio dear, NPR's policy has the potential to irreparably damage the Web. I would give up a thousand NPRs for the WWW.

NPR encourages and permits links to content on NPR Web sites. However, NPR is an organization committed to the highest journalistic ethics and standards and to independent, noncommercial journalism, both in fact and appearance. Therefore, the linking should not (a) suggest that NPR promotes or endorses any third party's causes, ideas, Web sites, products or services, or (b) use NPR content for inappropriate commercial purposes. We reserve the right to withdraw permission for any link.

Once again, let's have a look at that:

• Therefore, the linking should not (a) suggest that NPR promotes or endorses any third party's causes, ideas, Web sites, products or services
  You don't need a link policy to acheive this end. Someone who makes a fraudulent misrepresentation is committing a crime; your policy is irrelevant to the remedies you could seek in such an instance.
• (b) use NPR content for inappropriate commercial purposes.
  Again, you don't need a policy for this. There are illegal commercial uses of NPR's programming; if someone breaks the law, the presence of this policy won't matter. As to "inappropriate" uses, who gets to define inappropriate? There are plenty of unauthorized, even impolite uses that are lawful. Prohibiting "inappropriate" uses is nonsensical, prohibiting unlawful uses is redundant.
• We reserve the right to withdraw permission for any link.
  You can't withdraw that which you did not extend. I don't need your permission to link to your site. The absence or presence of your permission is irrelevant. There is no intellectual property interest in controlling the contexts in which your work may be referenced.

Link Discuss [Boing Boing Blog]

A good summary of last week's controversy over linking to NPR stories on their website.

2:17:19 PM •  • comment