More accuracy

Want a more recent example of what I was talking about with Knowlton Thomas in last night's post?  How about today's article "Twitter: Google+ Does Not Concern Us".  

There's nothing wrong with the point of view of the post.  It's not taking a radically insane stand to get views, but it's also not particularly accurate.

Twitter has spoken. And Google+ is not on its radar.

Co-founder Jack Dorsey spoke at a technology conference yesterday and stated that his company was much more than a social network and that Google's latest bid in the social space was not a concerning issue.

What technology conference Knowlton?  That's a fact that adds accuracy and information to the story.  Was Thomas there?  I'd assume not, otherwise he'd have some idea what the name of the conference was.  I found out that it was the Digital Life Design conference in Munich, Germany from twenty seconds on Google.

So let's assume that Thomas wasn't in Germany.  Where did he hear about what Jack Dorsey said?  Unless he's bugged the Twitter co-founder's pullover, I'd imagine he read it from somewhere.  Where?  I don't know, he doesn't provide a reference link or credit.  That's not only bad web citizenship, it's bordering on plagiarism.