[LINK] The Conversation: Academic rigour, journalistic flair

[Roger Clarke]

At 16:09 +1000 13/7/11, Marghanita da Cruz wrote:
>>  Welcome to The Conversation
>>  Launched in March 2011, The Conversation is an independent source 
>>of information, analysis and commentary from the university and 
>>research sector. The site is in development and we welcome your 
>>feedback.
><http://theconversation.edu.au/>

I wrote to the Editor 3 weeks ago, seeking clarification of some 
concerning aspects of their Terms.  Copy below.

I have yet to receive as much as an acknowledgement.

Which calls into question the bit about 'we welcome your feedback' ...


Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 08:59:27 +1000
To: Andrew.Jaspan at theconversation.edu.au
From: Roger Clarke <Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au>
Subject: Terms of Authorship for The Conversation

Mr A. Jaspan
The Editor
The Conversation

Dear Andrew

The Conversation has been enthusiastically promoted.  I've assumed 
from the outset that I'd be offering a few contributions at some 
stage.

A particular topic was raised with me yesterday (net neutrality). 
I'm considering whether I can find the time to put something together 
in the short term.

So I looked for the Guidelines for Authors, and found I needed to register.

Unfortunately, a number of aspects of the Terms are serious 
inhibitions to participation.

Many of your initial contributors will have offered material in a 
spirit of goodwill, based on the reputation of the Founding Partners, 
and the composition of the various Boards and the Team.  But ongoing 
willingness to contribute will depend on trust in the operation.

I'd be happy to clarify any aspects of my quick notes below, and make 
concrete suggestions.

Regards  ...  Roger Clarke


Concerns About the Terms at http://theconversation.edu.au/users/sign_up

1.  The Terms aren't set up in a way that enables them to be 
conveniently viewed as a whole, or printed.

2.  The Terms appear to be capable of being changed unilaterally 
without notice.  They purport to bind not only authors, but also 
commentators, to Terms that may not have been present, or that may 
have been materially different, at the time they signed up:
"You will be deemed to consent to these guidelines ['the 'Community 
Standards'] if you choose to post any content or comments to the 
site".

3.  A quick scan calls into question what role The Conversation 
thinks it's performing.  Is it a publisher in the strong sense of the 
word?

On the one hand, "we are not responsible for its content", and "you 
agree to indemnify us in full and permanently against any third-party 
liabilities, claims, costs, loss or damage we incur".

On the other hand, it claims the right to modify the submitted work 
in advance of it appearing on the site:
"We reserve the right to make additions or deletions to the text or 
graphics prior to publication".

4.  The asserted right to modify the work is not qualified by terms 
such as 'minor' or 'editorial', and hence the Terms purport to 
authorise substantive and/or substantial changes to be made;  and 
there is no indication that the changes will be approved by the 
author, or even notified to the author, prior to publication, or 
indeed ever.

5.  This Term contains dangerously loose language:
"you agree not to post material that is deliberately intended to 
upset other users"
(Every rhetorical device has precisely that purpose.  They're a 
primary means of attracting the reader's attention.  So authors can't 
use rhetorical devices??).

6.  The definition of conflict, as in 'conflict of interest', is very 
different from the mainstream:
"A conflict exists where an individual's interests diverge from their 
professional responsibilities such that an independent observer might 
reasonably conclude that the author has been unduly influenced by 
their own interest."
(1.  Interests arise in many roles, not just in the role of 
'individual'.  In addition to my personal principles, my own set of 
interests includes academic roles (although currently only in two 
universities), consultancy (as Principal), consultancy (on behalf of 
recent, current and prospective near-future clients), advocacy (both 
consumer rights and privacy), the NGO of which I'm Chair, the NGO of 
which I'm a company director, and two companies of which I'm a 
Director.
(2.  A conflict exists whether or not it unduly influences behaviour. 
The potential for real or reasonably perceived conflicts needs to be 
declared, whether or not it has any actual impact on the author's 
content.)

7.  This Term:
"Research, as a general principle, should not be reported before it 
has been subjected to a recognised process of peer review."
appears to be in conflict with this statement on the home-page:
"The Conversation is an independent source of information, analysis 
**and commentary** from the university and research sector".
(It's important that normative comments be able to be made, e.g. 
drawing attention to ethical issues and discriminatory impacts - and 
these are often very difficult to support with evidence.  Perhaps the 
intention is that commentary can be made, but must not purport to be 
evidence-based unless that evidence has been [previously?] subjected 
to peer review?).

8.  This 'Community Standard' is terrible:
"We will not tolerate ... language or contributions that could be 
interpreted as [racism, sexism, ageism, homophobia or other forms of 
discrimination].
(Apart from being absolutist, and using the general term 
'discrimination' when it should refer to something like 'proscribed 
discrimination', it invites all manner of requests for censorship).

9.  This is terrible as well:
"We will remove any content that may put us in legal jeopardy, such 
as potentially defamatory postings, or material posted in potential 
breach of copyright".
(It lacks any sense of proportion, any sense of suspension pending 
investigation, and any information about dispute resolution.  Do you 
really intend to respond to every lawyer's 'nastygram' and 'take-down 
notice' by meekly complying, and without reference to the author?? 
Indeed a later Term says that "all actions and decisions taken by our 
moderators are final"!  For 3-line comments, that's practical;  but 
for articles, it's far from adequate).


Asides:

10. The 'How to complain and corrections' section of the Terms 
doesn't belong there.  It's common to both authors and readers of the 
site.

11. Community Standard 1 is a touch Montypythonesque:  'If there's 
one thing I can't tolerate, it's intolerance';  and it smacks of 
hypocrisy: 'you have to be courteous, but we don't'.

12. The 'real names' provision may be conventional, but it's silly 
(because the concept of 'real name' is a form of wishful thinking - 
invented by national security extremists), and the Term is 
ineffectual.  The risks that the provision seeks to address are in 
any case suitably covered by other Terms.


-- 
Roger Clarke                                 http://www.rogerclarke.com/
			            
Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd      78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA
                    Tel: +61 2 6288 1472, and 6288 6916
mailto:Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au                http://www.xamax.com.au/

Visiting Professor in the Cyberspace Law & Policy Centre      Uni of NSW
Visiting Professor in Computer Science    Australian National University