1/ All writing that attracts attention on the Internet sparks a Why Wasn't I Consulted? (WWIC) fest. See ftrain.com/wwic.html by
Conversation
Replying to
2/ WWIC is market clearing mechanism in attention economics. If anyone has thought/said anything relating to X, X being said sparks outrage
1
1
Replying to
3/ "that has already been discredited," "I used to think that," "Your X reminds of Z's Y" are all usually WWIC moves disguised as debate.
1
1
Replying to
4/ WWIC is Internet equivalent of academic WWIC: "Why Wasn't I Cited?" that unfortunately drives 80% of peer review.
1
Replying to
5/ In both cases, academic and Internet, WWIC is a bid for a share of unexpected attention oil strike.
1
1
Replying to
6/ Right answer to WWIC in most cases is, "because you didn't contribute enough to the genesis and aren't adding enough post publication."
1
Replying to
7/ Internet makes it easy to cast wide net and cite/consult 10,000 things for tiniest idea. Acknowledging all is cowardice, not generosity.
3
2
3
Replying to
8/ You don't do your idea or your readers any favors by burdening your every thought with the weight of massively trivial provenance.
1
1
Replying to
9/ This is why reinvention is *more* valuable when there is more history. Assume every thought is a rediscovery. Let WWIC handle links.
2
1
Replying to
11/ Reason for this state of affairs is that "originality" and "avoiding mistakes of past" is vastly over-valued in industrial culture.
1
2
2
Replying to
12/ ...at the expense of elegance and *contextual appropriateness* that reinvention fosters.
1
1
Show replies
Replying to
—or not, because what you end up spouting is so utterly banal. Like: "My New Thesis! Remix culture values copies over originals!" Ugly.
1
Replying to
and most citation laden stuff is not banal?
2
Show replies
Replying to
— tempest in a teacup. I find the current issue (when peer reviewing) is lack of adequate citation, not overabundance of it.

