Re: ZD Poll and Deception

["Glenn T. Livezey" <glivezey@netserv.unmc.edu>]

  On Fri, 5 Dec 1997 01:08:18 -0500 (EST), Christopher Pall wrote:
  
  >AM-INFO DIGEST 69, Topic No. 11
  >Subject: Re: ZDnet Poll "Expired"
  >>>>>>> Second,  when did you open and close this poll?
  >This would be nice to know.
  
  It might help to interpret the information provided (re: liars and statisticians).
  Might not.
  
  >>>>>>> Third, do you really think that adding an "expiration date" is sufficient,
  >>>>>>> given that the appearance and "response" of the active links still gives
  >>>>>>> the impression of an interactive site?
  >I think it is sufficient and you do have to give them a chance to fix it....
  
  Its a start, but if that date were not sufficiently prominent, it would do nothing to correct the
  problem. The public is cautious when it comes to dairy products, but do you think most
  people read the expiration date on every web document before they read the text? or even
  after? And it wouldn't take that much longer to just "fix it".  
  
  >>>>>>> I would suggest a more thorough "rewrite" of that page and its links so that
  >>>>>>> 1) you eliminate what appears to be the option of entering a vote
  >>>>>>>     (the vote entry options and "vote" button)
  >>>>>>> 2) you replace them with a link to the "results",  posted as a final tally along
  >>>>>>>     side the information I requested (date and duration of poll data collection), and
  >>>>>>> 3) clearly note that this is a final static tally, and the "vote" is over.
  >>>>>>>     Otherwise, you are still publishing a rather misleading document.
  >I wouldn't say that it were RATHER misleading, just annoyingly deceptive - let me qualify
  >the deceptive part of that. Deceptive in that it makes you feel like you are voting even
  >though you are not, but I really don't feel like it's a major issue - but it does need to be
  >fixed. Give em a chance, ZDNet is a little slow... ZDNet is bad for reasons other than
  >having a broken web page. Oh yeah, and as for your suggestions, they all seem fairly good.
  
  I chose "misleading" rather than "deceptive", to avoid the implication of a sinister motive.
  - ie to "give them a chance".  However, I am not convinced this webpage is simply "broken", 
  anymore than I am convinced it was, by design, a MS propaganda tool .
  
  My point about "the impression of an interactive site" was precisely your "feel like you are
  voting even though you are not". We all have our opinions, but in my mind fooling the public
  into thinking that they do indeed have a say (a vote), when in fact their "vote" does not even
  register, *IS* a "major issue". Particularly given the "results" are at odds with many other sources.
  
  What would you think if AM-INFO, sensing a trend toward an "undesirable" collective opinion,
  simply stopped relaying posts that supported that opinion, but could somehow maintain the 
  appearence of an open forum. I understand that this would be far more difficult than simply
  "freezing" the results of a poll, but it still makes my point. You expect your opinion to be "heard"
  (read) by all, and that what you read represents the complete input of the group. Anyone
  visiting the ZDnet page, BY ITS APPEARANCE would expect their "poll" to register their "vote"
  and to provide "results" that reflect both their "vote" and all others cast. Anything less is misleading
  at best (because it appears that way) and intentional deception at worst. I know that few people
  view ZDnet from the same perspective as they do essential.org. But most people expect that
  information presented in a "news" format should be more reliable than that presented in a paid
  advertisement. 
  
  Since the world seems hellbent on "marketing" everything, I think we had better insist on 
  adherence to our "truth in advertising" policies and regulations. "Caveat emptor" may spring to
  some minds, but that only means we can't trust anything to be what it appears. That may be a 
  sufficient response for the Social Darwinism fans out there,  but it is not , in my opinion, an
  acceptable effort to protect the truth as we know it.
  
  All of this "poll" business may be a petty diversion from the serious discussion of the legal and 
  economic ramifications of MS's business practices. Afterall, even the worst interpretation of  the 
  "poll" story would not be evidence of criminal activity. But much of our discussion comes down to
  our relative acceptance of deception on the part of others. We hold different opinions, but all of us are 
  sensitive to the least indication of a misleading arguement - either by false assumption, defective
  logic, or, deception by design.
  
  For those who strongly believe that anything MS might have done is acceptable in defense of a "free"
  market (we should have no laws), we have no need to address the question of deception.  Not only is
  All fair... , but the concept of fairness is irrelevant. 
  For those who believe that this market is fundamentally different than those for which the laws were written 
  (these laws don't apply here), we have no need to address the question of deception on MS's part,
  because in this arena, All is fair, etc.  I find the question applies to those who invoke this "special
  dispensation", since it appears to be based on economic theories that can never be proven (but then,
  are there any other kind?). 
  For those who are not sure if what  MS has done specifically fits the assumptions and definitions
  set forth in the law (on what  basis could we apply the law), deception could work both for and against
  MS according to the specific interpretation(s) of the law. Thus, is it the "wrong" kind of deception, advanced
  by methods specifically addressed and/or proscribed by the law? Or were they clever or lucky enough to
  stay "inside the lines"?
  For those who are certain MS defied the law, in letter and in spirit,  but are uncertain about what specific proof
  may be at hand, deception on MS's part is a given, and further, an indication that the proof exists but is 
  merely hidden. 
  Still others are certain MS defied the law, see the evidence of their criminality and deception everywhere
  in the "Microsoft Way", and wonder why it isn't as obvious to everyone as it is to them.
  
  Where ever you fall in this spectrum of opinion (the failings of my characterization notwithstanding), you
  (and I) have likely chosen three acceptable levels of deception, one for yourself, one for those who agree
  with your position and one for those who don't. Rare is the individual who has a tight enough grasp on
  the limits of these influences to be truly objective. 
  
  As such, if we resort to a "poll" of the list members, not only should we be certain of its inclusiveness 
  (all should be counted), but maybe we should give everyone three votes?  ;-)
  
        
  
  
  
   
  Glenn T. Livezey, Ph.D.
  Director of Perinatal Research
  Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine
  Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology
  University of Nebraska Medical Center
  600 South 42nd Street
  Omaha, NE 68198-3255
  Phone- 402-559-8064
  FAX- 402-559-7126
  e-mail glivezey@netserv.unmc.edu