alt Hacker News> In either case -- no review process, or a failed review process -- the failure is definitionally systemic.
Ortho and grammar errors should have been corrected, but do you really expect a review process to identify that a diagram is a copy from another one some rando already published on the internet years ago?
Replies
> but do you really expect a review process to identify that a diagram is a copy from another one some rando already published on the internet years ago?
We aren't talking about just some random image from some random blog. The article we are talking about is about a specific topic, which when searched online one of the first is the article containing the original image (at least for google, bing seems to be really struggling to give me the article but under images it is again the first).
I would cut some slack if this were a really obscure topic almost noone talks about, but it's been a thing talked about in the programmer space for ages.
I don't think the characterization of this being a diagram from "some rando" is accurate or fair.
The original content is highly influential... which should be self-evident by the fact it is being reproduced verbatim ten years later, and was immediately recognized.
Shouldn't "where are we sourcing our content" be part of any publication review process?
No. I'd expect that "continvouclous morging" gets caught.
plenty of people on the internet recognised it immediately, so sure, he may have been a rando when he created it, but not so much 15 years later..
Here is the original: https://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/
Here is the slop copy: https://web.archive.org/web/20251205141857/https://learn.mic...
The 'Time' axis points the wrong way, and is misspelled, using a non-existent letter - 'Tim' where the m has an extra hump.
It's pretty clear this wasn't reviewed at all.
Yes. This is expected at any serious company as intellectual property violations can have serious consequences.
Yes? It's a famous diagram, at least in the world of Git workflows, so I would expect a reviewer of Microsoft's Git workflow documentation to be familiar with it.
(But the main issue is that the diagram is slop, not that it's a copy.)
It’s not just a copy. It’s a caricature of a copy with a plenty of nonsense in it: typos and weird “text”, broken arrows, etc. Even a cursory look gives a feeling that something’s fishy.