Blogger ticks off The Walrus for not linking to the source of his quote

There's an interesting and, I must say, civilized conversation going on between a blogger David Eaves and The Walrus magazine, represented by managing senior editor Jeremy Keehn; the focus of which is full attribution for a quote from Eaves that appeared in the terrific article The Dark Country in the November/December issue of The Walrus. 

Eaves, who runs a site called Eaves.ca, says that the quote was taken, correctly, from a long posting that he made a few months back. He says he is "thrilled" to see it as part of the article, but less thrilled that while he was quoted by name, the original source (his website) was not mentioned and no link was provided in the published article or, later, in the web version of it. He contends that The Walrus doesn't link to others as a matter of policy, a policy he disagrees with. 

They believe in the myth that they need to keep people on their website - which means they also believe in keeping their readers away from the very material that makes their stories interesting. This makes their website less interesting (and is why I don't visit it - I visit websites with external links, 'cause I like to explore ideas -- in both the literal and internet surfing sense).

Keehn responded on The Walrus blog. Perhaps surprisingly he argues that to link to the blog where the quote came from would somehow "affect the flow of narrative". He says it was a conscious decision:

Ultimately, I concluded that David’s credentials were all readers needed to know. In hindsight, I might have chosen otherwise, in part because the quotation wasn’t a spoken one, and in part because this is a rare instance where the source actually ended up caring.

But Keehn goes further, denying there is a policy against linking, but then blaming lack of money for not putting links in the online versions of its published stories. 

Note that expert commentary of the kind David’s quotation was providing often appears without much context, partly because many stories would otherwise get bogged down in dreary repetitions of “reached by phone in her office, Professor X said…”....

We don’t go in and insert links into our magazine pieces because we don’t have the resources, and because the decisions about what and where to link would be difficult and time-consuming to navigate, especially given that we rely on freelance writers, who might have opinions about what should be linked to or not.

I am expressing some surprise since The Walrus employs several interns, whose job is to fact-check and do such necessary editorial work as injecting links.  And it is simply precious to claim that article flow would have been interrupted by a referral link to the original post. If you're going to play in the online leagues, you should probably play by the online rules -- one of which is to provide clear and comprehensive links to the sites that are your sources. For The Walrus, of all magazines, to plead poverty for not following those generally agreed rules just seems lame. 
It might have simply been better for Keehn to say they were sorry and would try harder.