One distinction - we didn't republish your post. We linked out to the original post you'd written and quoted a few lines from it which we thought were particularly telling about the reasons behind & process of shutting down.
That was the format we took throughout the post. Original link and a few line excerpt.
Hope that makes sense.
http://diffle-history.blogspot.com/2008/06/postmortem.html
I wrote the aftermath because I felt that there were a few other things that should be said with the benefit of hindsight, and I'm actually thinking of writing a second aftermath, 6 years later, but want to see how events unfold first. Most of the actual lessons are in the postmortem.
(I'm not miffed - I think one of the great strengths of the web is the ease of linking to and republishing content. But I do think it's worth pointing out that one of the pitfalls of aggregators is that you lose the original context of the post - in my case, there was a whole blog that tracked the startup journey, day by day, and not just a single post.)
http://3things.gitbooks.io/77-failed-startup-post-mortems/wi...
And compare that with the linked article:
http://blog.wishberg.com/post/92014031388/the-final-note-tha...
It looks as if the whole post was copied without any commentary at all.
The diffle one is exactly like that, not quite a 'few sentences'.
We're not affiliated with the book.
It would be even better if authors who are going to say yes to a request like that would make it clear, by using a Creative Commons license in the first place.
Interviews are a totally different situation and 'on the record' quotes out of context are the very reason I avoid interviews like the plague. I've yet to have one where that didn't happen, journalists are also called 'reporters' but from my experience 'reporting' to them does not mean reporting what was told to them but retelling in a way that suits their own agenda.
I've seen arguments that there are too many facts to be told, so it is the very job of a journalist to take those facts and tell a story by selectively highlighting ones that matter in that story.
I disagree with the premise. I think we (the audience) could handle all the facts if they were given to us straight. The narrative journalists are creating is not helpful, is actively harmful - because it's always someone's agenda and because they twist the facts too much (i.e. they lie through their teeth) to tell that story.
INB4 I get accused of generalizing, I'm invoking Sturgeon's law twice - once on journalists and once on critical thinking of general population, all that while giving a friendly reminder that this "general population" is the majority of the electorate. Sometimes all that crap tends to reinforce instead of cancelling out.