<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Blog Commenting Policy</title>
	<atom:link href="http://sarahglassmeyer.com/?feed=rss2&#038;p=354" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://sarahglassmeyer.com/?p=354</link>
	<description>in perpetual beta</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Sep 2010 19:20:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Sock Puppet</title>
		<link>http://sarahglassmeyer.com/?p=354&#038;cpage=1#comment-624</link>
		<dc:creator>Sock Puppet</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Feb 2010 02:40:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sarahglassmeyer.com/?p=354#comment-624</guid>
		<description>This whole thing is pretty funny...

First let&#039;s take a quick trip down this website. Each time someone visits this site information about them is given away, free of charge, to Sitemeter. A free service whose value is evidently acceptable. As is implicitly disclosing to readers the employers of some commenters.  

Returning to the issue at hand. It is rather amazing to find that people can be bought for $149. That is, after all, what we&#039;re talking about here. If the give-away is such an influencer that it warrants so much emotion then it has crossed into the realm of the author&#039;s price. A pad of notepaper wouldn&#039;t warrant such a reaction so obviously it is under the threshold. 

This quote is really interesting &quot; free books from publishers in the exhibit hall…because I never do business with those vendors.&quot; It implies that you do business with the vendor in question here. What, then, is the nature of that business? I thought for a moment the issue was about some version of &#039;ethics&#039; that placed librarians above doing anything to be influenced. Perhaps that means that when questioned about something covered by the free books you snapped up you&#039;ll intentionally choose not to tell a patron about them because of the &#039;influence&#039; you have by reading those free copies?

So where do you draw the line? A conference sponsored by the vendors, where they subsidize each attendee&#039;s cost of attending certainly can&#039;t be acceptable, right? What about receiving grants funded by a vendor to attend a conference? What about law school libraries who receive significant subsidies  from these vendors at the expense of every person in the country who accesses the legal system. Or is it only unacceptable for a vendor to have people come to a session and provide input on a product? Seems like that should be banned according to the Glassmeyer standard. Similarly if the vendor traveled to where the librarians are that would similarly be an expense and could be considered a gift. So we&#039;re left with vendors who can only get input on new products from those who can afford to and offer to, travel on their own dime. While a product designed and implemented without librarian input might well help break out of old paradigms it might not be the best move by the vendor.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This whole thing is pretty funny&#8230;</p>
<p>First let&#8217;s take a quick trip down this website. Each time someone visits this site information about them is given away, free of charge, to Sitemeter. A free service whose value is evidently acceptable. As is implicitly disclosing to readers the employers of some commenters.  </p>
<p>Returning to the issue at hand. It is rather amazing to find that people can be bought for $149. That is, after all, what we&#8217;re talking about here. If the give-away is such an influencer that it warrants so much emotion then it has crossed into the realm of the author&#8217;s price. A pad of notepaper wouldn&#8217;t warrant such a reaction so obviously it is under the threshold. </p>
<p>This quote is really interesting &#8221; free books from publishers in the exhibit hall…because I never do business with those vendors.&#8221; It implies that you do business with the vendor in question here. What, then, is the nature of that business? I thought for a moment the issue was about some version of &#8216;ethics&#8217; that placed librarians above doing anything to be influenced. Perhaps that means that when questioned about something covered by the free books you snapped up you&#8217;ll intentionally choose not to tell a patron about them because of the &#8216;influence&#8217; you have by reading those free copies?</p>
<p>So where do you draw the line? A conference sponsored by the vendors, where they subsidize each attendee&#8217;s cost of attending certainly can&#8217;t be acceptable, right? What about receiving grants funded by a vendor to attend a conference? What about law school libraries who receive significant subsidies  from these vendors at the expense of every person in the country who accesses the legal system. Or is it only unacceptable for a vendor to have people come to a session and provide input on a product? Seems like that should be banned according to the Glassmeyer standard. Similarly if the vendor traveled to where the librarians are that would similarly be an expense and could be considered a gift. So we&#8217;re left with vendors who can only get input on new products from those who can afford to and offer to, travel on their own dime. While a product designed and implemented without librarian input might well help break out of old paradigms it might not be the best move by the vendor.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
