[530] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
Electronic Postings
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Public-Access Computer Systems For)
Fri Jun 19 15:05:32 1992
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1992 10:07:51 CDT
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
From: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <LIBPACS%UHUPVM1.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list PACS-L <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
2 Messages, 88 Lines
*-----
From: LIBRDKM@OSUCC.BITNET
Since I'm associated with Meckler by virtue of being editor of one
of their publications, my opinion is probably suspect by at least
some of the PACS-L readership. However, since I have a full-time
job as a working librarian, I feel entitled to express it anyhow.
Let's suppose that Chris Librarian posted a question to PACS-L asking
if anyone knows anything about "Desk Scheduler Plus" (just to make
up a name). Let's further suppose that there is a review of it in
a recent issue of Library Software Review, a commercial publication
from Meckler. Any of the following could happen:
1. Nancy Nelson sees the request and posts a reply stating that a
review is in LSR vol. x, #n, and the reviewer recommended it (or
did not).
2. Marshall Breeding, editor-in-chief of LSR but also a full-time
employee of a library, does the same.
3. I, as software review editor of LSR, do the same.
4. The reviewer, a librarian who has no particular affiliation with
Meckler beyond doing the review, does the same.
5. A librarian who remembers reading the review does the same.
Now, if I'm interpreting Steve Cisler correctly, he would obviously
call #1 tainted, but not #5 or (I presume) #4. I'm not sure how
he would feel about #2 and #3, but I'm guessing that they would be
at least partially tainted, although maybe less so than #1. (Steve,
if I'm mis-interpreting your views, please correct me.)
My feeling is that Chris L. just wanted the information and doesn't
care who posted it, and further, there are probably others who are
glad to have the info. So I don't think that Nancy, Marshall, or
I would be out of line, providing we don't go on to say something
like "LSR is available from Meckler for x dollars per year."
But let's take it a step further. Suppose the author of Desk
Scheduler Plus posted a message stating that the reviewer was
guilty of some inaccuracies (What, one of _my_ reviewers? Never!).
Or simply that the version reviewed has been upgraded to address
some of the reviewer's complaints. A letter to the magazine would
be a proper way to communicate this, of course, but if I were Chris,
I would greatly prefer the immediacy of an Internet message over a
letter that would be published two months later.
I guess what I'm saying is that it isn't as cut and dried as Steve
seems to be saying, and that it's possible for representatives of
commercial interests to volunteer useful information to the list
in a non-controversial manner.
Dan Marmion
Head, Library Systems
Oklahoma State University
and Editor-in-Chief, OCLC Micro
*-----
From: jaffe@ucscm.UCSC.EDU (Lee Jaffe, McHenry Library, UC Santa Cruz,
408/459-3297)
I agree with Steve Cisler's critique about how it is not just what
you say, but also who you work for and how you say it. I want to
add two points to Steve's.
First, there is quite a difference between posting a note to everyone
on the list and just to the original poster. If someone sends a note
asking if anyone knows of a particular product that meets a certain
need, it is one thing for a vendor to answer that person individually
and another to post it widely. (In turn, if that person thinks that
is a good solution, they may recommend it to others and/or include it
in a summary sent to the whole list.)
Second, this is not a problem specific to the Internet. Even when there
are no rules regarding commercial activity, there is an ethical issue
whenever a person stands to gain financially from their actions. If you
assume a collegial relationship with other members of the forum anyone
"working the crowd" is ethically suspect. Most vendors go a long way out
of their way to avoid the slightest appearance of conflict of interest.
I would suggest that vendors take a very conservative approach in
mentioning their products and services in this forum. Even if you may
be able to rationalize such activities, the risk of alienating your
potential clients is too great.
-- Lee Jaffe
