Confused
Confused
Posted May 9, 2017 8:04 UTC (Tue) by aggelos (subscriber, #41752)In reply to: Confused by corbet
Parent article: The rise of copyright trolls
On that note, it would be useful to go on record as to who was the initiator when LWN receives travel assistance for attending an event. Did the editors request it or was it offered?
Can I bring this up again?
In the interest of increased transparency, can our editors (in the future) extend their disclosure parties who provided travel assistance with the information on whether they were offered the funds or asked for them of their own accord?
Also, could we have a ballpark estimation for the percentage of events LWN was invited, as well as sponsored, to attend in the last few years? If there are events that LWN was invited to cover, are there any obvious commonalities in those requests (e.g. a specific travel sponsor or event)?
Thanks.
Posted May 9, 2017 8:19 UTC (Tue)
by gevaerts (subscriber, #21521)
[Link]
Posted May 9, 2017 13:16 UTC (Tue)
by corbet (editor, #1)
[Link] (2 responses)
On the other hand, we do publish nearly 20 years of history which, I believe, shows a consistent and clear picture of where LWN is coming from. That was achieved at some considerable personal cost, including far too much time spent on airplanes and away from home. Yet you're saying that we can be somehow bought by offering us yet another economy-class transoceanic experience. I could get fairly offended if I weren't so busy giggling at the prospect.
Posted May 9, 2017 14:42 UTC (Tue)
by aggelos (subscriber, #41752)
[Link] (1 responses)
For people who think you might be 'bought', you're already putting up the information on who provides travel assistance for LWN editors. So (obviously, I might add) that was not my concern or implication. My concern is that the style of reporting practiced and defended by articles such as this (i.e. only summarizing what was said, refusing to check facts as common practice (e.g. first footnote here and subsequent reply), choosing not to point out items which are clearly left off the agenda) is a disservice to LWN as a subscriber-oriented site. Given that LWN (apparently; I honestly apologize if I have gotten the wrong impression from the comments by the staff) will dutifully reproduce the presentations and discussions at an event for its (primarily developer) audience, it makes sense to want to know which organizations want to promote which events to this audience. If you do not want to provide such information that is your prerogative (though it'd be helpful if we knew why). In my eyes, the situation is analogous to the transparency you currently practice re: travel sponsoring. Admittedly, "LWN attended this event on the invitation and sponsoring of Org X" might not sound great (though if it doesn't sound good to your ears, you might stop and consider why). But, as you say, 20 years of history assures us of the good faith efforts of the LWN editors. What is also assured though, is that bias in reporting is not only a matter of personal integrity. If I may quote another comment out of context: With that in mind, I hope that you (or any other editor at LWN) no longer feel you have a reason to be offended. And perhaps that you'll reconsider the suggestion re: increased transparency.
Posted May 9, 2017 15:15 UTC (Tue)
by aggelos (subscriber, #41752)
[Link]
Confused
We don't track who mentions travel funding first, sorry.
Confused
Confused
People are prone to bias. Even the best of people. They may not even be aware of it themselves. The way these biases work is that professionals can convince themselves they are doing the right thing as part of it. You need to openly acknowledge interests that might bias things (as is best practice in the medical world, e.g.) to have a hope of countering it. And generally be systematic about counter-balancing self-interest-bias - cause humans _are_ very prone to it.
Confused