I can speak about this from personal experience. When I took over the
Tattoo FAQ last year, one of the things I got was an "artist list"
which included not only shop info, but short reviews as well. One
artist had had a scathing review in it (that he was going blind in his
old age and hurting people with very bad tattoos). I got a phone call
from some lawyer who said he was representing the artist. As lawyers
go, he phoned the Director of the UH Computing Center instead of
dealing with me directly. Ah, lawyers--gotta love 'em. The director
basically said that the policy here is to not get involved with
liability--which meant that while I had academic freedom, I would also
shoulder libel suits on my own.
Boy--I cleaned up the FAQ quick (especially after consulting with the
EFF folks, and posting a query to their group for advice).
Basically, you have a couple of options. As an editor, YOU can
exercise what you want to do. Remember that as a FAQ maintainer who
has total control over the files' contents, you *may* be held
accountable for content, even if you didn't write it yourself.
1. You can keep that negative review in the FAQ, and allow the
publisher to write a "rebuttal," of equally short length, and
include it in your FAQ next to the negative review.
2. Track down the original reviewer and find out exactly what s/he
meant by "sleazy." Calling someone an asshole may make you
vulnerable for libel suits--however explaining that the person
exhibits specific behaviors ("he refused to return my phone calls
and told me that I was a fat hag") that are FACTUAL will be a way
to protect yourself. So perhaps a review such as "The photos
often show women in scanty clothing in ways that this reviewer
perceived as lurid and for some, even sleazy."
3. It's one thing to have a directory--it is another to have value-added
fields like reviews. Make sure that the contributor for each
review is prominently displayed NEXT to each review (and not
clumped at the end of your FAQ in a thank-you list)--its
purpose is two-fold: For authenticity purposes (make sure the
reviewer isn't the publisher's ex-wife, etc.) and in case a person
wants to ask further questions of the reviewer.
4. Finally, perhaps the easiest thing to do is to simply refuse to
print any reference to companies you find offensive. If you do this
however, your readers will need to know the difference between
a company who you refuse to review, and one you have not reviewed
yet at all. Perhaps you can try to maintain as comprehensive a list
as possible of at least the names and addresses, even if you can't
have a review of all. In the case of my artist list, there is NO
WAY I can ever list ALL the good tattoo artists. I specify that
the review comes only from those who are online, who have provided
me with a write-up. The way it has worked out, the bulk of reviews
are very positive--so a keen reader should be able to tell if
a reviewer was somehow not quite pleased with the work.
5. What one person considers sleazy, might be very sensual to another.
In cases where people have emailed me to disagree with an artist
review, I usually follow up on it by asking detailed questions--
and post the counter-review alongside the original. This provides
a more multi-faceted write-up that provides more comprehensive
information for the reader.
Hope this helps.
Lani Teshima-Miller (teshima@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.edu) "Sea Hare" o/ /_/_/
UH School of Library & Info Studies. "Whatever the cost of our o|<0_0>------*
libraries, the price is cheap compared to that of an ignorant \=^-| |_| |
nation." -Walter Cronkite [R.a.b.bit--FAQ Maintainer: "Think Ink!"] \_B}\_B}
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved