Does anyone know of a good tutorial on how to create hyperlinks?
If so, please send it along to Paul Thurrott. He obviously hasn’t mastered that skill yet.
In this week’s blog post, Paul picks up a story from Neowin about the delay of SP3 but doesn’t link to the original Neowin report. (I did.) He quotes dueling statements from McAfee and Microsoft on their escalating brouhaha but doesn’t link to either one. He quotes the Microsoft Security Response Center Blog on their response to a reported bug in IE7 but doesn’t link to it. (I did.) Same with stories about Sony and HP and Apple and Google. See a pattern here? It’s like he’s saying, “Want more details? Google it, buddy! I’m too busy to make those links!”
Oh yeah, and he mentions me, too, by name. I’m really not interested in getting into a food fight with Mr. T, but this really is an important thing. Why does a responsible journalist provide links to articles he writes about? And why should that be one of the criteria you use when evaluating who you get information from? Because that’s the only way you can go check the source for yourself and learn more. (Here’s an example of why it matters.) That’s also the only way you can verify that the person writing the story is not making stuff up. But Paul doesn’t do that. And in the story where he calls me out by name, he just plain gets the facts wrong:
There was a lot of silliness online about Windows Vista licensing this past week, with one of my more vitriolic colleagues, Ed Bott, taking me to task for publishing an article that relayed Microsoft’s official position on the Vista EULA (End User License Agreement). After explaining that this was the wrong thing to do, and claiming he had all the facts, Bott then later published an email Q & A he had with Microsoft himself a few days later, because he was “still trying to understand the confusing new licensing terms.”
But, oops! No links! So Paul’s many fans will just have to shake their heads and tsk-tsk about this Bott guy without ever reading what I wrote. Ironically, in the article that sent Paul around the bend, I wrote:
I’ve dug deeply into this issue and I’m convinced that he’s being spun by his sources at Microsoft. Unlike Paul, I’ll give you links to all the facts, so you can read the supporting documents and decide for yourself.
Go ahead, follow the links to Paul’s post and mine and see for yourself if you can find the part where I claimed to have all the facts. I did have about a dozen more facts than Paul, all of which contradicted his sloppy research, which consisted of phoning a Microsoft product manager and printing a quote. That’s not journalism, that’s stenography.
I don’t bother subscribing to Paul’s 436 weekly articles (I may have missed a few – the man is definitely a faster typist than me) precisely because he often gets stuff wrong and he never cites his sources. So even if I find something interesting, Paul’s articles don’t do anything to help me learn more about it. But his name pops up in Technorati and he gets linked to by other people occasionally, so I see stuff like this.
Over to you, Paul. And I’ll get you that tutorial on hyperlinking as soon as I can dig it up.