APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 1999-12 > 0944444937


From: "Mills" <>
Subject: Re: [APG] Data CDs
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 19:48:57 -0600


Donn suggests
>[The] appearance that professional independence is being
>compromised can be avoided by disclosing the relationship
>whenever the publisher's activities, products
> or services are involved.

. . . and whenever we find it necessary to comment negatively on any
competitive product. "Disclosure" does work fine to clear our own
conscience. But much of the public doesn't split hairs so finely. On certain
genealogy listserves, for example, it's common sport to jump on certain
genealogists who are affiliated with certain companies -- even when they
make their affiliation known at the time they offer an opinion or advice to
the group. Similarly, as editor of a certain quarterly, I can assure you
that we get letters of complaint when certain colleagues whom we all know to
be *very* objective professionals review products by publishers they are in
some way affiliated with. THose complaints aren't true, simply because
somebody believes them -- but putting oneself in a position where
objectivity *can* be questioned does diminish trust, no matter how good the
intentions and no matter how many disclaimers and disclosures we make.

On the other hand, we might try to protect our reputation for non-bias by
offering our advice to multiple companies, but the practice doesn't work as
well as the theory. Given the competitiveness of the industry, software
producers often ask their "advisors" to sign non-disclosure clauses and are
duly nervous at the idea that someone who has seen their product may be
advising a competitor at the same time.

Elizabet

This thread: