A recent article called “Why you should Steal, not copy” is supposed to be a creative and expressive idea to give others the value of stealing to create. He also posts images and a video of Steve Jobs. The problem with this post, as I have seen with many posts in LinkedIn, is he is inaccurate. He implies that Steve Jobs stole and that is what made him great. In fact he didn’t steal. I wrote a scathing kind of reply, since over 232 comments never try to straighten him out with the correct facts. I actually agree with the idea to allow others to consider ‘building on the creativity of others. But Derek Handley actually is trying to give others the permission to steal without regret. But this is not really what great minds of the past were saying.
I wrote a long rant, trying to spank Derek, but the limitations of the comment system spanked me! It would not SUBMIT because of the length. I wanted to at least post this response somewhere, because I think I bring up an excellent point: He is wrong, makes himself look foolish and overall sends out a bad message sue to his own lack of knowledge.
What Derek doesn’t know is Steve Jobs paid for access to Xerox PARC labs.. More abhorrent is the 232 comments that NEVER mention this fact to clear the air about what Steve Jobs did. Steve Jobs paid for access to the labs project and didn’t create a printer user interface – as Xerox PARC did, but used their idea to rebuild the user interface of the personal computer. Xerox really didn’t play within the personal computer market and was not a true competitor. In fact, Xerox PARC went on to influence the User Interfaces for their printers and they did very well with it, without being in competition with Apple. Additionally, Xerox PARC made a killing on the shares they received from Steve Jobs.
Additionally, Derek mentions that Picasso also encouraged to steal. But bringing a great artist into this idea was just wrong, since great artists learned from the strengths and lessons of one another. Way before Picasso was the Renaissance era where men like Leonardo da Vinci, Luca Pacioli, Michelangelo, Donatello, Albrecht Durer, Lorenzo Ghiberti, El Greco, Raphael, John Napier, Petrus Apianus, Gerolamo Cardano, Marin Getaldić, Guidobaldo del Monte, William Oughtred, Galileo Galilei, Cervantes, John Donne, Rojas, Shakespeare and so forth. Any one of these men represent amazing things, based on their mentors and learnings.
So my issues are:
1) the LinkedIn Influencers are not edited by anyone, and consequently dilute the value of LinkedIn
2) the people who comment on these articles are mostly being used to elevate the author and in return validate them. this also dilutes the value of the LinkedIn information
3) People are less and less knowledgable of history and are no longer humble by their lack of knowledge
I really want to like LinkedIn Influencers, but I feel like many simply influence with ignorance