"on mumsnet this week" in the Mail. Is this a new thing

[jujumaman]

Came across this this morning when I should have been working

Is this a new weekly rip-off by the Mail? Or has it been going on for months and I'm behind the times as usual

I'm not quite as virulently anti the Mail as mnetters, find it silly rather than the end of civilisation as we know it. But still ...

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/806417-Would-you-ask-a-wedding-guest-to-shave-before-the fao mp's roundup.

yes source is clearly attributed as mn

yes source is clearly attributed as mn

Oh all right not plagiarism, but they're certainly implying they've some right to publish - which it doesn't sound as if they do - or a special relationship with MN - which they don't.

they are not implying or describing any special relationship at all

I suppose it depends what you use MN for, Lenin. If it's for chatting with friends, and maybe getting advice on non-embarrassing DC-related issues, then being identified is not so much of a problem. And I madly admire your self-control in not posting about friends and family!

It's when people stray into vulnerable personal territory (be that relationships, health or work) that things start to get a bit sticky. I can think of some ongoing threads at the moment where the OP would be instantly recognizable to friends and colleagues were it to figure in the DM.

I suppose that begs the question about whether it's appropriate to use a public internet forum for support - but as we've all seen, it can be a total lifeline.

i think that anyone reading that page in the dm would assume a relationship.

I had assumed it was "authorised" actually due to the fact that is it just ermmmm a Mumsnet column. About Mumsnet. And I thought that would no way be fair usage.

x-posts, Lenin.

Yes, good idea to remind people not to make themselves too identifiable - and I have seen this done. But some of the stuff in Relationships is so raw that you'd hesitate to jump in with advice on how to post, in case of scaring the poster off.

IIRC, it's a maximum of a paragraph they are allowed to copy.

The truth is though, the only absolute protection, if you're planning to reveal a lot of private detail is not to post on a public board - this is the internet. Your posts can be lifted, linked to and searched for by all and sundry. We cannot protect folk from all that without changing the very nature of MN.

We can and are building private groups but they'll not offer the immediacy or volume of advice the public boards will.

I have to admit I thought it was offical.

Yes, agree that it is reasonable to assume it is authorised - although it is not.

Well they've quoted a large, continuous chunk of text with only very light editing, made it the entire basis of the article, and the MN text forms more than half of the article.

If they'd done that using content from a book, I think it would be infringement of copyright. But I'm not a lawyer.

and yes I think it definitely reads as "authorised"

Might be worth MN adding this to their disclaimer re copyright.....if only to protect themselves.....its dangerous waters....

Justine, very true about the public nature of MN. But don't you think that featuring certain threads in the DM means that posters are more 'findable' than through a search engine?

On a slightly different note, would it be possible to make MN only accessible to registered users? Or does that destroy your business model? (Not a pointed question at all, MNHQ do a great job, and y'all have got to eat.)

V. healthy approach Lenin - I salute you!

"The truth is though, the only absolute protection, if you're planning to reveal a lot of private detail is not to post on a public board - this is the internet."

I think that's true Justine and I don't think anyone expects absolute anonymity, but there is a very far cry between the remote possibility of a chance google hit, and the glaring searchlight of a Daily Mail article ENTIRELY about you and your personal life.

It's not a privacy issue Justine, it's the fact that I spend time on here, a site 'by parents for parents'. If I wanted what I had written being stuck in the shitemail then I'd ask them for a job and do it the proper way. I give my time freely to this site and to the wonderful people herein. I do not and nor am I prepared to give my time freely to Murchdoc(sp?) enterprises.

I think that the more mumsnet publicises mumsnet, the less likely posters are to reveal personal information and the more likely they are to hold back from vigorous debate.

I understand entirely the tension between MN's commercial interests (more publicity) and protecting the value of its content. It's a hard one. Personally, I think that the link with the DM degrades MN.

Absolutely agree with theyoungvisiter and thedailymailhates me.

People in crisis are never going to pay attention to disclaimers and warnings when they join.

And it troubles me too that privacy means less support is available to people who for whatever reasons have really distinctive sets of circumstances that make them much less likely to be able to find support in RL.

We could all name at least one poster who has got through testing times with a great deal of support from people who could identify with bits or all of a distinctive 'issue profile'.

The kind of bullying flatcap endured would surely become more common.

everybody knows that murdoch doesn't own the dm, don't they?