I didn't intentionally plagiarize, I mentioned Jon Mitchell name on the post, before I shared the post which WAS presented better and then later shared by Mike Elgan did it became famous and the question of plagiarism arise before that no one really cared for that content.
In my defence... Rohit Shrivastava. The guy who unintentionally shared something that bombed big time.
On the internet, anything without a link is the new plagiarism.
I think Jon is completely overreacting, but I think the lesson we should all learn here is that linking is the polite thing to do. Attribution is no longer enough.
I should not have used the word plagiarism so carelessly, in association with your name. I apologize to you.
I don't really mind it as much since the intention was not wrong, infact on the contrary there were more discussion on the way we, me and Mike Elgan shared the story then as originally shared but Jon, I did mention his name on it though I WAS not sure about the fact if he WAS on Google+. I usually avoid links because not all users would want to get out of Google plus to read articles, I mean I as a user
never click on shared links on social site, that's just a behaviour pattern.
So, a self-proclaimed "technology evangelist" doesn't know how to properly credit someone? You are essentially saying you have no clue how Google search works?
I am technology evangelist not a google+ evangelist.
Also Jon Mitchell was always on the post, had he brought it with me I would mentioned him the original post itself. But I guess that was not Jon Mitchell's intention. He wanted this to be self promoting propaganda. Nobody cared about the post by Jon Mitchell until it was shared by ME & Mike ELgan.
In my defence... Rohit Shrivastava. The guy who unintentionally shared something that bombed big time.