Link Details

Is this really ripoff? They did attribute you properly, so in the end it's just journalism.

Journalism usually has some original content. This is more like CliffNotes.

Well, half the blog entries I read are just summarizing some article the poster read, so this really isn't surprising. New content is increasingly rare these days...

I'm still not sure I agree. The internet community thrives on reinterpretation and reposting. If they would pass it for their own I would be the first one to cry foul. In this particular case the might have overcited, but the general practice is what makes blogosphere so interesting.

I would agree that most of the time this re-interpretation is great. To me, it seems like InfoQ cites their sources in such a way that it makes it look like the particular author wrote their findings on behalf of InfoQ rather than "hey, we found this site that may be useful." Don't get me wrong -- I think the site's concept is a great idea BUT I would like the site a lot if they made more prominent links to the original author and were sure to mention we're just summarizing this other post.