Luminous Landscape Forum

Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: bjanes on February 16, 2012, 10:01:38 am

Title: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: bjanes on February 16, 2012, 10:01:38 am
This week's issue of JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association, February 15) has an interesting article on disclose of conflict of interest, which is mandatory for most peer reviewed journals. Conflicts of interest are inevitable with leaders in any field, as manufacturers often seek out their advice and help. Possible conflict of interest notification is helpful, but may have unintended consequences. Two such consequences are strategic exaggeration and moral licensing. The former takes place when the writer provides additional bias to counter-effect anticipated discounting by the audience engendered by the conflict of interest statement. Moral licensing takes place when the writer may feel that the reader has been warned and he/she (the writer) is then free to offer biased information.

Regards,

Bill
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: theguywitha645d on February 16, 2012, 10:19:42 am
And how is this applicable to LuLa? This is not exactly a peer-review publisher in the academic sense. I would not really trust the articles here to fall under the rigors of that type of publishing. The folks here are just having fun, but nothing published here is exactly researched and are really just personal opinion.
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: bjanes on February 16, 2012, 10:52:09 am
And how is this applicable to LuLa? This is not exactly a peer-review publisher in the academic sense. I would not really trust the articles here to fall under the rigors of that type of publishing. The folks here are just having fun, but nothing published here is exactly researched and are really just personal opinion.

Where have you been? LuLa does accept advertising and reviews products and publishes articles on them and many of the principals have relationships with vendors. Michael has published a conflict of interest statement. I think Michael is a straight shooter and value his opinion. However, when I see excessive claims concerning a product, strategic exaggeration might be involved. Or possibly merely sloppy writing.

Regards,

Bill
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: theguywitha645d on February 16, 2012, 10:56:46 am
Bill, this is a photo enthusiast web site. What are you expecting? You are simply going have to read and judge for yourself. Why would you take anything written here on face value?
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: KirbyKrieger on February 16, 2012, 11:00:17 am
Caveat lector.

I take what I find useful from what is published here.  In no case do I think it is unbiased, though in all cases it may be that the bias is in no way venal.

I have learned a tremendous amount from the content of Michael's site, for which I am very grateful to him and to those who contribute.
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on February 16, 2012, 11:54:00 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-1lmz3qreY
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: Wayne Fox on February 16, 2012, 04:30:36 pm
I'm certainly intelligent enough to understand that those writing have biases (which are usually pretty obvious).  This isn't science nor journalism, and I've seen plenty of criticism of most cameras by writers.  It was obvious some time ago LuLa was not going to move down the road of DPReview (why bother), and the writing was more about what was interesting.

Just curious what you do find wrong with the disclosure (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/about/disclosure.shtml).

Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: bjanes on February 16, 2012, 05:58:52 pm
I'm certainly intelligent enough to understand that those writing have biases (which are usually pretty obvious).  This isn't science nor journalism, and I've seen plenty of criticism of most cameras by writers.  It was obvious some time ago LuLa was not going to move down the road of DPReview (why bother), and the writing was more about what was interesting.

Just curious what you do find wrong with the disclosure (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/about/disclosure.shtml).

Absolutely nothing. Michael's disclosure statement is a model of what is required. Other contributors of articles should also make similar statements.

Regards,

Bill
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on February 16, 2012, 06:11:47 pm
Please let's not go down this road again!!!
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: jjj on February 16, 2012, 08:33:08 pm
I've noticed Michael to have many serious biases in his writings. He seems dead against poor camera ergonomics and very much in favour of high image quality. The man obviously cannot be trusted.
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: langier on February 16, 2012, 09:15:32 pm
+1
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: dreed on February 16, 2012, 10:28:35 pm
If only everyone delt with their conflict of interest problems in the manner that Michael does.
The man is to be applauded for being open and straight forward about this unlike so many other people.
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: ErikKaffehr on February 17, 2012, 01:30:39 am
Hi,

I'm with Wayne on this one, but would add a few comments.

I see LuLa as a site about the personal experience of the authors. They are certainly biased, everyone has a bias. If you like something, there will be a bias if you dislike another one.

On the other hand, I feel that the authors on LuLa have a solid integrity. I don't think that their views are affected by advertisement. It is also my very clear understanding that Michaels started working with Phase One long before getting friends within the company. I also feel it's OK to use the best equipment and feel happy about it.

Now, I would not say that Michael is completely objective, the art of photography is highly subjective. Nor would I say that LuLa is a scientific publication, far from it! It's a great site where a few great guys (No gals, a great pity!) share their experience and vision.

Sometimes we have an article that may have been goofed up a bit, at least in my view. I don't discuss which ones, because I feel the authors have spent efforts on doing their tests and sharing information. In my view we should applaud the effort even if we have issues with the results. Constructive critic is OK but just saying that someones efforts are worthless is bad. An article causing a discussion may lead to another article that may offer new insights.

Best regards
Erik


I'm certainly intelligent enough to understand that those writing have biases (which are usually pretty obvious).  This isn't science nor journalism, and I've seen plenty of criticism of most cameras by writers.  It was obvious some time ago LuLa was not going to move down the road of DPReview (why bother), and the writing was more about what was interesting.

Just curious what you do find wrong with the disclosure (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/about/disclosure.shtml).


Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on February 17, 2012, 02:12:26 am
+1 to Eric and Wayne.

I want to add, that IMO the problem is not to discuss things like audio cables, wine, policies of disclosure conflicts of interest or whatever.
The problem simply is about respect.
Protected by the anonymity of the net things in various forums often go out of hand and end up in silly and pointless squabbleing, far away from the original intention of the OP.
Anonymity in the net, group processes with the illusion of being backed up by others and the lack of direct social interaction along with the consequence of the written conversation being prone to misunderstandings lead to situation where otherwise grown up and well behaving people are dragged into a process of regression and end up in a sand box war.

To me LuLa is an important site since I started taking photographs again some years before after a long break and it has accompanied me since then. I feel well here reading the forums, posting my own stuff and being in a general friendly interaction with others - often highly skilled people with an incredible amount of technical and artistical skill. I enjoy surfing the photo sites of the members and seeing what others do and I learn a lot from that.

I don't want to see this place beeing overrun by the stupidity, flatness, inconsideration and egomania we see so often on the net. And I feel responsible for my part in it as well as I hope others feel responsible for this place too.

For anyone interested in regressive group processes and the consequencs of them I want to suggest reading Sigmund Freud writing "Massenpsychologie und Ich Analyse" ("Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego"). Could be quite enlightening reading this piece from the pre-WWW era.
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: Rob C on February 17, 2012, 04:23:20 am
Christoph

Don't remember seeing your site before; n¡ce eye you show, even if your new antique is a bit of a shocker! Almost as bad as an M-series for framing...?

;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on February 17, 2012, 06:10:07 am
Christoph

Don't remember seeing your site before; n¡ce eye you show, even if your new antique is a bit of a shocker! Almost as bad as an M-series for framing...?

;-)

Rob C

Ey, thanks ..
You just reminded of updating the site - maybe I can do something on the weekend - its overdue.
This antique dinosaurus is really fun, though I didn't take too many images with it yet due to time issues.
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: dreed on February 17, 2012, 06:51:52 am
Protected by the anonymity of the net things in various forums often go out of hand and end up in silly and pointless squabbleing, far away from the original intention of the OP.

I wonder sometimes if this is due to the anonymity or something else, perhaps the person themselves?

To pick a person that seems to often get .. embroiled (Jeff Schewe - please don't take offense, you're just a good non-anonymous example :) .. the justification usually given reads more like "you wanna pick a fight? fine with me, lets roll up our sleeves and have at it!" I don't understand why except that in many threads, that is Jeff and the best way to deal with it is to ignore it, not get worked up or involved. I've never seen him get offended if someone does ignore those style of comments and rather the conversation continues to be productive. I'm sure the same holds true for others too.

Thus my advice to folks is simple:

"Play the ball and not the man."

You can't score points by "playing the man." This holds true for whatever code of football you follow.

(Hmm, maybe I'm wrong about the anonymous bit because even though we know what he looks like and what he gets called, most of us don't know who he is and thus he is therefore anonymous.)
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: hjulenissen on February 17, 2012, 08:31:46 am
They are certainly biased, everyone has a bias. If you like something, there will be a bias if you dislike another one.

On the other hand, I feel that the authors on LuLa have a solid integrity. I don't think that their views are affected by advertisement.
I dont know or claim anything about the bias, integrity or paycheck of authors over here.

I do think that it is possible to have "integrity", while still being "biased by the hands that feed you". In other words, if you are to write an article about your company, your boss etc, even if you have the best integrity and intent, there is a significant possibility that your words will be shaped by this connection. That is ok, it is (probably) part of being human. That is also the reason that scientists, judges and others should use tools that tries to control this part of human behaviour.

I think it is good practice for journalists and writers of feel-good artistic activities that make recommendations and offer conclusions to offer information of possible such biases. Having a friend in a camera-making company certianly is not wrong, and perhaps unavoidable, but informing the reader is a good thing. I can hope for a larger degree of bias-aware methology in such professions, but realistically I can not demand it.

-h
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: Gary Brown on February 17, 2012, 08:50:35 am
I dont know or claim anything about the bias, integrity or paycheck of authors over here.

I think it is good practice for journalists and writers of feel-good artistic activities that make recommendations and offer conclusions to offer information of possible such biases.

On the main Luminous Landscape site, in the links in the left-hand column is one titled “Full Disclosure” on exactly those topics.

See http://luminous-landscape.com/about/disclosure.shtml
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: theguywitha645d on February 17, 2012, 10:23:36 am
I am not biased, I am right.  ;D

Look, there is going to be no way to vet the contributions. Disclosures are not going to solve anything. The best cure for the problem is an educated reader (or a thread  ;D ).
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: Richowens on February 17, 2012, 11:18:06 am
NO, the best cure is courtesy and respect for each other. Quit worrying about what someone else is doing and concern yourself with your own behavior.

When your flatulence has no odor and when you can walk on water and give life to the dead then bring up your dumbass disclosure shit. Until then everyone can
get by without your guidance and pompous bullshit.

Yes this can be called an ad hominem attack on whomever feels guilty(still don't get the who\whom thing) and I apologize to Michael for behaving less than harmonius.

Rich

Now I'll go sit in the corner for bad language.
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: Rob C on February 17, 2012, 01:33:20 pm
NO, the best cure is courtesy and respect for each other. Quit worrying about what someone else is doing and concern yourself with your own behavior.

When your flatulence has no odor and when you can walk on water and give life to the dead then bring up your dumbass disclosure shit. Until then everyone can
get by without your guidance and pompous bullshit.

Yes this can be called an ad hominem attack on whomever feels guilty(still don't get the who\whom thing) and I apologize to Michael for behaving less than harmonius.

Rich

Now I'll go sit in the corner for bad language.

Okay, Rich, whist sitting in the corner, consider this: the verb to be doesn't take an object. It's as simple as that. To, by, with or from whom.

;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: Richowens on February 17, 2012, 02:18:28 pm
Rob,

 Thank you, kind Sir. I shall remember that. In my younger days I had an English teacher named Mrs. English. True story. I could be rather unruley and she liked to apply her ruler
to the knuckles of unruley ones. I came to hate English and English. Absorption of lessons ceased.

Rich
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: Schewe on February 17, 2012, 03:18:49 pm
I don't understand why except that in many threads, that is Jeff and the best way to deal with it is to ignore it, not get worked up or involved. I've never seen him get offended if someone does ignore those style of comments and rather the conversation continues to be productive.

I usually don't pick fights...but I finish them. My responses are a mirror, amplified, of the attitude of a given post. Obviously, many people don't like to get called on the carpet and things escalate which is fine by me. It makes things interesting...

As for the full disclosure, it's a red herring...an oblique attack on an unnamed individual. Mike had to do the disclosure statement as the owner of the site due to his interpretation of a change in law. Nobody else who posts articles nor messages are so required. This site is what it is...take it or leave it. You spend nothing here except time (unless you buy the products offered–and thanks if you do). If the OP thinks he's in charge of ethics here on LuLa, I would suggest he's done a very poor job. I don't recall any sort of conflict of interest disclosure from him (not that I could care less).
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: bjanes on February 17, 2012, 05:48:56 pm
I usually don't pick fights...but I finish them. My responses are a mirror, amplified, of the attitude of a given post. Obviously, many people don't like to get called on the carpet and things escalate which is fine by me. It makes things interesting...

Your assertion that you end fights is amusing. Your Chicago manners are obvious, but on the internet you have to leave your Tommy gun and brass knuckles behind. From your participation in Michael's online tutorials, I see that you are a big guy, but I'm sure I could outrun you. Besides there are severe criminal and civil penalties for battery. So I have little to fear.

As for the full disclosure, it's a red herring...an oblique attack on an unnamed individual. Mike had to do the disclosure statement as the owner of the site due to his interpretation of a change in law. Nobody else who posts articles nor messages are so required. This site is what it is...take it or leave it. You spend nothing here except time (unless you buy the products offered–and thanks if you do). If the OP thinks he's in charge of ethics here on LuLa, I would suggest he's done a very poor job. I don't recall any sort of conflict of interest disclosure from him (not that I could care less).

A conflict of interest is not an ethical issue. As I mentioned in my OP, such conflicts are bound to occur with leaders in the field who have personal or financial relationships with vendors. When such a conflict of interest arises by an author who posts an officially sanctioned article and I see statements made by that person that do not seem backed up by data and appear disproportionate to what is reasonable, I have to wonder if that conflict is affecting his judgement, either consciously of subconsciously. It is not necessarily an ethical issue. Conflicts of interest are less likely for the majority of us who merely post opinions or facts backed up by data or reference to reliable sources and have no relationship to a vendor other than the fact that we buy and use their equipment. However, emotional attachment to a particular camera brand can also lead to conflict. Unreasonable statements made by Nikon or Canon fan boys are suspect. Since you like analogies, it is not unethical for me to state that my daughter is a fine young lady, but my recommendation of her to a potential employer would likely be discounted.

Regards,

Bill

Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: dreed on February 17, 2012, 05:56:20 pm
Your assertion that you end fights is amusing. Your Chicago manners are obvious, but on the internet you have to leave your Tommy gun and brass knuckles behind. From your participation in Michael's online tutorials, I see that you are a big guy, but I'm sure I could outrun you. Besides there are severe criminal and civil penalties for battery. So I have little to fear.

Why did you write this?
Just to be inflamatory?
How does it help the discussion be productive and useful?

Comments like yours do not help these forums and those on the Internet, in general, be a more genial and productive place.

I was going to respond to Jeff's comments myself, but really, it's not necessary except to say one thing:

whether you start a fight or end a fight makes no difference - the sin is that you were involved in it.
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: digitaldog on February 17, 2012, 06:23:35 pm
Why did you write this?
Just to be inflamatory?
How does it help the discussion be productive and useful?

It isn’t nor was the original post starting all this nonsense.
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: Schewe on February 17, 2012, 07:19:16 pm
I was going to respond to Jeff's comments myself, but really, it's not necessary except to say one thing:

whether you start a fight or end a fight makes no difference - the sin is that you were involved in it.

I too was gonna pass this by but, you said SIN? Really, you think it's a sin to engage in aggressive verbal discourse? I mean, pedophilia is a sin...but short of posting to a pedophilia forum (which this most certainly is not) posting in a general photographic forum almost regardless of what one might post hardly counts as a sin in my book.

Sorry, couldn't help myself...

:~)

To to BJ, if you don't think conflict of interest is an ethics question, I'm really not sure you understand ethics.
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: deejjjaaaa on February 17, 2012, 07:41:34 pm
Mike had to do the disclosure statement as the owner of the site

23 May, 2010 - Changes at Lu-La

Mark Dubovoy and Chris Sanderson have joined Michael Reichmann, the site's founder, in becoming partners in The Luminous Landscape Inc.
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: Schewe on February 17, 2012, 07:47:50 pm
So, now you want full disclosure from Chris? Or is Mark the real target?
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: deejjjaaaa on February 17, 2012, 08:32:00 pm
So, now you want full disclosure from Chris? Or is Mark the real target?
It was just a note to clarify that LL has 3 owners, not 1, even if 2 of them are minority shareholders...
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: Schewe on February 17, 2012, 08:34:51 pm
Yep...but it's Mike's name on the door...
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: ErikKaffehr on February 17, 2012, 08:40:30 pm
Hi,

Nice to have a person on the planet without bias, that leaves us with just 6 999 999 999 biased people.

Joke a side, experience with different stuff and knowledge probably reduces bias. I'd also say that I seldom had an issue with any statement Jeff has made, in fact I cannot recall when I felt he was absolutely wrong, but my memory is short.

Best regards
Erik


I am not biased, I am right.  ;D

Look, there is going to be no way to vet the contributions. Disclosures are not going to solve anything. The best cure for the problem is an educated reader (or a thread  ;D ).
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: dreed on February 17, 2012, 10:01:47 pm
I too was gonna pass this by but, you said SIN? Really, you think it's a sin to engage in aggressive verbal discourse? I mean, pedophilia is a sin...but short of posting to a pedophilia forum (which this most certainly is not) posting in a general photographic forum almost regardless of what one might post hardly counts as a sin in my book.

Well, in the context of Internet forums, why wouldn't sin be an appropriate word to use?

I suppose I might also have used the word crime and you might ask should someone go to jail for that? Well, in real life, using aggressive/offensive language can have serious consequences, depending on where, when and who's around, so maybe that is a better word.

I'm not sure if my vocabulary is just too weak to express what I want to say or that I've run into another situation where I just can't find the right word.

Or to put this in another way, when people are fighting in a thread in a forum, I can't tell who's winning but I can tell who's losing - everyone.
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: Schewe on February 17, 2012, 10:38:49 pm
Well, in the context of Internet forums, why wouldn't sin be an appropriate word to use?

Well, I don't know what your background is, but sin has far reaching implications way beyond simply misbehaving when posting to a forum...kinda out of scale. Course I was raised a Missouri Synod Lutheran as a child and wrath of god was the theme. Course, I'm an atheist (http://www.atheists.org/) now. Hey, maybe THEy have a forum! I wonder if there are any conflicts of interest there?

And no, religion is not something I debate...there's no winning when it's faith based–reason goes out the window.
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: bjanes on February 17, 2012, 11:04:13 pm
whether you start a fight or end a fight makes no difference - the sin is that you were involved in it.

In an ideal world we would not have fights, but in the real world, sometimes fighting is necessary. If some thugs are attacking an old woman on the street, what should you do? Was it wrong for Churchill to oppose Hitler with military force? On a similar but less important note, if someone is making incorrect statements on the forum, he should be called out in the most collegial manner possible, but some people respond only to blunt force.

Regards,

Bill
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: Christopher Sanderson on February 17, 2012, 11:27:15 pm
It was just a note to clarify that LL has 3 owners, not 1, even if 2 of them are minority shareholders...

FWIW and 'in the interest of....' blah blah blah, I am am completely biased and in the pocket of those from whom I receive money and who give me stuff: for what I am worth and in my interest. Puhleeeze! If you don't like it here, don't use our bandwidth to tell us so - go somewhere else.
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: wtlloyd on February 17, 2012, 11:42:07 pm
You're skirting a Godwin's Law FAIL.

This thread is now officially ridiculous.



In an ideal world we would not have fights, but in the real world, sometimes fighting is necessary. If some thugs are attacking an old woman on the street, what should you do? Was it wrong for Churchill to oppose Hitler with military force? On a similar but less important note, if someone is making incorrect statements on the forum, he should be called out in the most collegial manner possible, but some people respond only to blunt force.

Regards,

Bill
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: ErikKaffehr on February 18, 2012, 03:02:37 am
Another definition of sin:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/math/5/5/4/5540ad0d2c04184df137970b856d0474.png)

;-) Erik ;-)


Well, I don't know what your background is, but sin has far reaching implications way beyond simply misbehaving when posting to a forum...kinda out of scale. Course I was raised a Missouri Synod Lutheran as a child and wrath of god was the theme. Course, I'm an atheist (http://www.atheists.org/) now. Hey, maybe THEy have a forum! I wonder if there are any conflicts of interest there?

And no, religion is not something I debate...there's no winning when it's faith based–reason goes out the window.
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: Rob C on February 18, 2012, 04:18:59 am
Rob,

 Thank you, kind Sir. I shall remember that. In my younger days I had an English teacher named Mrs. English. True story. I could be rather unruley and she liked to apply her ruler
to the knuckles of unruley ones. I came to hate English and English. Absorption of lessons ceased.

Rich


I had the same experience with a series of maths teachers (none named Mr Math nor even Mr Matheson) who turned me right off the subject. In the end, in days when it mattered, my then girlfriend, later to be my wife, tutored me through enough maths to get my S2 maths in the engineering course I was stuck in prior to switching to photography. I suppose that suggests that it often is the teacher who is responsible for the failure or otherwise of particular students. But then again, looking at it from the teacher's perspective, with the limited time that can be spent with any individual student...

Rob C
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 18, 2012, 10:22:19 am

...I suppose that suggests that it often is the teacher who is responsible for the failure...

Hey Rob, I always thought of you as the last guy on Earth to join the let's-find-someone-else-to-blame club, no? ;)
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: jed best on February 18, 2012, 10:34:00 am
Would it not be more constructive to discuss photography, than debating potential conflict of interests. This is NOT a scientific, peer reviewed journal but a forum of ideas and opinions. All of us bring a bias based on past experiences no matter the affiliation. Just my two cents.

Jed
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: jeremyrh on February 18, 2012, 10:41:17 am
Would it not be more constructive to discuss photography, than debating potential conflict of interests. This is NOT a scientific, peer reviewed journal but a forum of ideas and opinions. All of us bring a bias based on past experiences no matter the affiliation. Just my two cents.

Jed
Amen to that.
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: Richowens on February 18, 2012, 10:50:48 am
Slobodan,

 Just for the record I am not blaming Mrs. English for my failure to learn. It was ultimately up to me to make use of the information provided.
I chose the path of defiance and ignorance.
 I think Rob C was just thinking out loud.........and I agree with him. A teacher can have a tremendous influence on a student's life.
 
Rich

Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: Rob C on February 18, 2012, 12:21:28 pm
Hey Rob, I always thought of you as the last guy on Earth to join the let's-find-someone-else-to-blame club, no? ;)



Not a member, Slobodan, but there is no doubt that attitude cuts both ways in everything that involves more than one personality.

In fact, in my website's 'acknowledgements' page I include Barbara Farr as my best teacher, ever. And she was. When I was leaving school to face the bigger world, she presented me with a copy of The Complete Works of Shakespeare. This at her own cost, I might add. To my shame, I never did (so far) complete it, but I can tell you that the first thing I asked my wife to bring me when I sat up after leaving Intensive Care post my heart excitement was that book.

My daughter and her husband both teach; according to them, some kids are simply unteachable despite your best efforts; others try, actively, to disrupt every class in which they find themselves and yet others are so desperate to leave and make money doing whatever such kids find to do, that they play truant a lot of the time. Then there's the occasional jewel who, given the chance, will educate himself to the limit of his ability and make the job worthwhile. Classes like that were totally alien to me; I suppose I must have lived in happier times or just been lucky in my schools, but loutish behaviour was definitely not the way it ran... anyone doing that would have been kicked out on his ear after having experienced a severe pain across his ass... but of course, now, you can no longer use methods that louts understand.

So no, not signing up to that club yet, Slobodan!

;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: Bob J on February 19, 2012, 04:33:10 am
I think the conflicts of interest work in complex ways.

For anyone writing on a site like this, their reputation is everything - from that PoV, they are just as likely to over-compensate where they are aware they have a bias, because they know that a significant minority (at least) will be suspecting their motive - and even if the conflict of interest does not exist, people will assume that the writer/administrator is getting 'benefits' from elsewhere.

In reality no-one is going to compromise themselves for advertising monies (or if they do they won't be listened to for long) - and I doubt that any advertiser would pull their adverts if criticism is justified.

Bob J (in the spirit of disclosure, no relation to the OP :-)
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: Rob C on February 19, 2012, 04:45:34 am
To nobody in particular.


Whatever happened to the concept of a websit, and one's position within it, being analogous to sitting in the host's parlour, having a civilized conversation and a cup of tea...

Rob C
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: feppe on February 19, 2012, 05:02:10 am
Whatever happened to the concept of a websit, and one's position within it, being analogous to sitting in the host's parlour, having a civilized conversation and a cup of tea...

Such concept does not exist for blogs or websites such as LL. Many bloggers feel they have earned the same freedom of the press enjoyed by print media. With this freedom comes the social contract that they conduct their business in an impartial manner, and adhere to basic journalistic ethics. FTC in the US agrees (http://alexbanayan.com/ftc-blog-disclosure) to a certain extent, and that is the reason TOP and (I believe) LL has disclosures on their articles.

Forums, on the other hand, are what you describe; but the OP is about articles on the main site so I won't comment further on that.
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: Bob J on February 19, 2012, 05:02:46 am
To nobody in particular.


Whatever happened to the concept of a websit, and one's position within it, being analogous to sitting in the host's parlour, having a civilized conversation and a cup of tea...

Rob C

It does happen on some sites, but you do need an active membership that goes along with it, plus quite clear lines of moderation - even then some people will view that level of expected behaviour to be curtailment of free speech, so there is no forum style that fits all.

The problem with a web forum is that you come in blind to the other people in the room, so you don't know if you are ordering a cup of tea in the local Women's Institute, or the pool hall down the road (my apologies to anyone who may feel I have sterotyped the WI or local pool halls...)


Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: Rob C on February 19, 2012, 08:59:42 am
Such concept does not exist for blogs or websites such as LL. Many bloggers feel they have earned the same freedom of the press enjoyed by print media. With this freedom comes the social contract that they conduct their business in an impartial manner, and adhere to basic journalistic ethics. FTC in the US agrees (http://alexbanayan.com/ftc-blog-disclosure) to a certain extent, and that is the reason TOP and (I believe) LL has disclosures on their articles.

Forums, on the other hand, are what you describe; but the OP is about articles on the main site so I won't comment further on that.



Well, on that basis, were this site mine, I'd be very tempted to lift a lazy two-fingers salute and close down.

I think that even raising the topic is a less than veiled insult.

Rob C
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: michael on February 19, 2012, 10:11:23 am


Well, on that basis, were this site mine, I'd be very tempted to lift a lazy two-fingers salute and close down.

I think that even raising the topic is a less than veiled insult.

Rob C

There are days Rob. Believe me, there are days.

Michael
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: John Camp on February 19, 2012, 03:08:27 pm
I worked for newspapers for a good part of my career, and I have a kind of newspaper attitude toward websites -- that is, the owners/publishers control the website and are responsible for what appears on it. There is a serious "responsibility" involved. In practical terms, though, websites can't be run quite like newspapers, because with a newspaper, ALL the content first goes through the hands of an editor. That's simply a practical matter of newspaper production. On a very large website with a forum, with automatic, self-selected publishing, it's somewhat impractical to have somebody sitting astride the commentary at all times (although some smaller websites, like The Online Photographer, do that.)

The point is, eliminating some commentary isn't (in my view) a restriction of freedom of speech. A website owner who stops an argument, locks a thread, or bans some commentators is not saying, "You can't speak," he's saying, "You can't use my website to promote your views." That's just like Target or WalMart saying, "You can't set up a soapbox and speak in our store." You're free to go anywhere else that you're accepted, or to set up your own website, and broadcast your views any way you wish -- you can speak as loudly as you wish, to whatever audience you can attract. But a website owner can say, "You just can't do it here."

Michael runs a pretty loose ship. I've been on this forum for several years, and it appears to me that's because of a conscious philosophical position. If I were running it (and thank god I'm not) I would be somewhat more restrictive. Not much, but somewhat. The Schewe-style exchanges don't bother me, but some of the exchanges that we saw in the late unlamented medium-format thread did bother me, and I would have shut the thread down much earlier in the process, and would have also have closed down any revivals of it. That said, I have no problems with the way Michael handled it.

But still, and to repeat myself, IMHO closing a thread, or banning a commentator, is not limiting free speech, nor is it censorship, any more than removing a disruptive child from a classroom is. It's simply taking responsibility for controlling the website. The disruptive person is free to make whatever speeches he wants, to whatever audience he can find...elsewhere.
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: feppe on February 19, 2012, 04:29:32 pm
Well, on that basis, were this site mine, I'd be very tempted to lift a lazy two-fingers salute and close down.

Blame the Americans and their sue-happy culture for that. The only people who win are lawyers.
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on February 19, 2012, 04:43:28 pm
There are days Rob. Believe me, there are days.

Michael



Well - if you don't suffer for something it doesn't really have a value ... so - everything is fine ... ;)
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: Bob J on February 19, 2012, 06:51:39 pm
...The point is, eliminating some commentary isn't (in my view) a restriction of freedom of speech. A website owner who stops an argument, locks a thread, or bans some commentators is not saying, "You can't speak," he's saying, "You can't use my website to promote your views." That's just like Target or WalMart saying, "You can't set up a soapbox and speak in our store." You're free to go anywhere else that you're accepted, or to set up your own website, and broadcast your views any way you wish -- you can speak as loudly as you wish, to whatever audience you can attract. But a website owner can say, "You just can't do it here."

An excellent point well made.
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: hjulenissen on February 21, 2012, 04:50:01 am
I think the conflicts of interest work in complex ways.

For anyone writing on a site like this, their reputation is everything - from that PoV, they are just as likely to over-compensate where they are aware they have a bias, because they know that a significant minority (at least) will be suspecting their motive - and even if the conflict of interest does not exist, people will assume that the writer/administrator is getting 'benefits' from elsewhere.
I agree. Bias can work in subtle ways - both ways. Therefore I am sceptical about anyone claiming to have no biases, or who claims to be able to willfully "switch their bias off". Bias seems to be part of being human.
Quote
In reality no-one is going to compromise themselves for advertising monies (or if they do they won't be listened to for long) - and I doubt that any advertiser would pull their adverts if criticism is justified.
I think that plenty of people will write whatever they think is needed to generate advertising money. The good ones will be able to attract visitors as well.

This is a general claim based on my personal experience with human nature. (got to have disclaimers for the lawyers in here)

-h
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: mac_paolo on February 21, 2012, 09:04:38 am
There are days Rob. Believe me, there are days.

Michael

Do not, Michael.
Please, do not.  :)
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on February 21, 2012, 09:58:08 am
[...]
I think that even raising the topic is a less than veiled insult.

Rob C

Indeed.
+1
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: theguywitha645d on February 21, 2012, 11:25:06 am
I think we need a new disclosure:

Quote
The guys at Leica will answer my phone calls and not yours. This comes from the effort I put in building this site. You don't like it? To bad, suck it up.

And we still get to count angles dancing on the head of a pin in the forums.
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: Rob C on February 21, 2012, 01:11:45 pm
Can angles dance on the head of a pin?






In a geometrically perverse manner, you could possibly see them.

But that would just lead to further Internet circles of confusion, so what's the point?

Rob C
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: theguywitha645d on February 21, 2012, 03:25:15 pm
Is there a point to this thread???
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Post by: Rob C on February 21, 2012, 04:15:15 pm
Is there a point to this thread???



Yes, once you define the locus...

Rob C