Kenton Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Four posts aimed personally at Mr De Boer; if he didnt have a negative opinion of Rmweb specifically (point not proven), it's a good way to give him one. Hey ho. Only Four!! I thought that was all the thread was about until we wandered way Off Topic into the muddy waters of copyright (yet again) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffalo Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 ...Boring they may be, racy lads'-mags-journalese they certainly are not, but they make the text seem far more learned.[/indent] It's not just decoration, the purpose is not just to make the work appear "more scholarly" but, crucially, it gives others the opportunity to check the same sources and either confirm what is said or arrive at a different interpretation. Nick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.A.C Martin Posted January 14, 2012 Author Share Posted January 14, 2012 Only Four!! I thought that was all the thread was about until we wandered way Off Topic into the muddy waters of copyright (yet again) It sincerely was NOT the point of my OP to direct anything at Mr De Boer, and would like to make that clear now. I wanted to iniatiate a debate whereby we could discuss to what extent nitpicking exists, and to what end constructive criticism exists, Mr De Boer's article being the stimulus for my original post. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Regarding nit-picking and being constructive, I think it is helpful to others to say there are many writers out there who live off the backs of others. They almost tell you it would be an honour for you to see your words and pictures in their books, and so it should come as no suprise to find you get no acknowledgement for providing information and no free copy or repro fee. Book publishing (in the railway and bus world) stinks to high heaven as far as I am concerned and you have to be your own agent and negotiate very hard if you are not to merely line other peoples pockets. Magazines, in my experience, are much fairer but still beware the rogue author. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dilbert Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 "Raw" information itself is not so covered. From Jeremy English's post, I understand that he (willingly, and with the admirable intent of assisting fellow modellers) passed on data that was then rewritten by the recipient and incorporated into a larger article. If Jeremy's words had been cut and pasted directly, then there would be an issue. However, since all that was "copied" was the factual information, I can't quite see what the problem is. Or have I misunderstood the circumstances? I think this boils down essentially to a form of protocol in that information that wasn't available to the writer of the article was used, and that no acknowledgement to a prime source was considered. I experienced the reverse of this. Was this due to a lack of consideration or ultimately the writer trying to gain brownie points by any means ? I have lived the opposite of Belgian's experience. I sent off some research notes via email to a webmaster. I received a reply asking if I was willing for this to be placed in the public domain, i.e. on the website. I didn't have a problem with this (it was the reason I sent the original message). The results were published, acknowledging myself as the source .. dilbert Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffalo Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 I think this boils down essentially to a form of protocol in that information that wasn't available to the writer of the article was used, and that no acknowledgement to a prime source was considered... It is quite simply unethical behaviour but, as others have suggested, it is unfortunately quite widespread. Nick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dilbert Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 It is quite simply unethical behaviour but, as others have suggested, it is unfortunately quite widespread. So is fare-dodging, jumping red lights etc... it should not be accepted and should be dealt with accordingly... dilbert Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 It sincerely was NOT the point of my OP to direct anything at Mr De Boer, and would like to make that clear now. I wanted to initiate a debate whereby we could discuss to what extent nitpicking exists, and to what end constructive criticism exists, Mr De Boer's article being the stimulus for my original post. That is true of the OP, however, right from early replies and raised again by several posters just who is this Mr De Boer. In particular who is he to be able to insinuate "nitpicking" among other reviewers and to imply that any criticism other than that put forward by him and others in the rarefied atmosphere of a modeling magazine is anything but constructive. I have still never heard of him up to this article and like others here wonder what right he has to make such statements. Other than the freedom of making such a statement as much as I would have, I still consider the statements on a parallel of a child shoving a stick into a wasps' nest just to see what happens. I have been back and reread the article again, and it has only made me see him in an even dimmer light. I also conclude that such an article by its very size and prominence has the backing of the editorial team at RM as surely it must have had to pass or be selected by them. Clearly his fame as being an antagonist of the thousands who frequent his derogatory "chat rooms" has been increased considerably by the article and this thread. Perhaps he should have raised a topic here on the subject, at least then he would have received a fairer review. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Jason T Posted January 14, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 14, 2012 I think Mr De Boer will be very happy with the reaction that his article has got; we're now on the fifth page and whilst it has gone a bit off-track, there has been some healthy discussion as to the nature of constructive criticism, nit-picking and anonymity. As such, his article has generated debate and raised his profile somewhat (how many of us had heard of the chap prior to this?). I'm not 100% sure he was actually having a dig or fully believes in what he has written. Part of me thinks that he was given column space in a popular modelling magazine and decided to go down a slightly different and more controversial route than the usual articles which appear. To be honest, I would rather see more articles along these lines. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.A.C Martin Posted January 14, 2012 Author Share Posted January 14, 2012 I have to be frank when I say I don't share the view that Mr De Boer was aiming his article at RMweb. Not even a little bit. I think if the 4VEP had been mentioned, or similar, then it might have been aimed at RMweb in terms of the higher than normal profile nature of the 4VEP problems on here (and yes, I am guilty of perpetuating that), however (and I say this all the time), we don't have anywhere near the amount of "nitpicking" or "manufacturer bashing", or downright insults that happens elsewhere. We just don't. RMweb has a huge userbase and a huge amount of brilliant, thoughtful posts which by far outstrip the inconstructive postings. But there are three specific forums I have observed who most DEFINITELY spend their times just "bashing" for the sheer hell of it. I won't name names as it's unnecessary: the fact is that RMweb as a whole is superior in its constructive criticism and reviews than any other forum. That's mostly down to the superb and encouraged photographic database and the thoughtfulness of its members. I feel that Mr De Boer's article is actually somewhere in the middle, accepting that we would all like to have the full facts of the models presented for else whilst accepting that there is a line between criticism and insults towards manufacturers,. That's how I read it at any rate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Y Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 we don't have anywhere near the amount of "nitpicking" or "manufacturer bashing", or downright insults that happens elsewhere. We just don't. RMweb has a huge userbase and a huge amount of brilliant, thoughtful posts which by far outstrip the inconstructive postings. Both you, I and many others get that but I do see silly and sweeping generalisations elsewhere on the 'net that RMweb is full of rivet counters and every other poorly targeted insult imaginable. If the content was aimed elsewhere then so be it but it should be stated; yes, we do have people analysing, criticising and improving behind pseudonyms and the article attempts to devalue those contributions purely on the basis of a pseudonym. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Downendian Posted January 14, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 14, 2012 One mans nit picking is another mans constructive criticism. In essense I've seen examples of this in many threads recently, and it has caused friction. I'm very happy to see criticism of new models, and to be honest many of the errors commented on I'd be oblivious to. I make my own decision of what to do which can be one of these three- most of which are arrived at after pontificating the facts/opinions discussed on this forum. (1) ignore it and buy the model knowing that I'm unlikely to do better, and live with it. (2) buy it and have a go at rectifying the error (3) keep my money in my wallet I have utmost respect for those that strive for perfection in their models, and part of the community spirit here is we can as a large group of consumers compare our huge knowledge base. I don't get irritated by "rivet counting" in the slightest. I think someone said earlier the actual term "nit picking"means unnecessary criticism based on ulterior motives on being a perceived superior being, or inter company rivalry when head to head models appear. I don't see that type of behaviour from us on this forum, nor those motives which are by in large altruistic. Some clearly take a different view, but so is life we have different opinions. Neil Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 I have to be frank when I say I don't share the view that Mr De Boer was aiming his article at RMweb. Not even a little bit. Whether aimed specifically at RMWeb - yes I agree RMWeb was not mentioned by name - or generally at all forums (he condescendingly refers to as "chat rooms", something on the internet has a completely different connotation that a factual broad-base discussion forum) he devalues what could have been an interesting comment by almost deliberately making it contentious. So to me he was aiming his criticism at all forums INCLUDING RMweb - until he makes us aware of something otherwise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernard Lamb Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 It seems that the days of factual articles with margin notes and references every few paragraphs are over. But there are books being produced that do still include them. In these days with digital cameras rather than photo copiers to obtain archive information, it actually can take longer to write up the source notes than it does to aquire the information. Coupled with the general dumbing down, nearly wrote catering for The Sun reader mentality, this has sadly become the way things are done. Bernard Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dilbert Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 So to me he was aiming his criticism at all forums INCLUDING RMweb - until he makes us aware of something otherwise. Haven't seen the article, won't buy the mag either... It would be interesting to see a mag critique of the Hornby embargo and constructively comment on how the printed press has respected this over the last years... trouble is that none would have the balls to do so.. dilbert Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Revolution Ben Posted January 14, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 14, 2012 I also conclude that such an article by its very size and prominence has the backing of the editorial team at RM as surely it must have had to pass or be selected by them. Hello, It's long established practice for newspapers to include columns that contradict that contradict the overall editorial position (eg Suzanne Moore in the Mail.) Railway modelling journalism is a conservative (small c) field and change or improvisation is rare. I suspect as a relatively newly appointed editor (though at least two years in, now) I wonder whether Steve Flint has decided that Railway Modeller could be "freshened up" by the inclusion of controversial or opinionated columns written by named indivuduals. As others have observed, it has certainly prompted debate here (and elsewhere I imagine) so I would say it's proved to be a success. cheers Ben A. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 I suspect as a relatively newly appointed editor (though at least two years in, now) I wonder whether Steve Flint has decided that Railway Modeller could be "freshened up" by the inclusion of controversial or opinionated columns If that is the way it is going then after 50 years (on and off) of contented subscribing it is time to cancel my subscription. Fortunately this one off annoyance will probably pass and RM can return to its conservative and reliable self. Somehow I don't have the same belief that the inclusion of this article was so planned though as they say "any publicity is good publicity, even bad publicity" I suppose we have to keep subscribing to see if there will be a counter argument published or a retraction. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim V Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 I suspect as a relatively newly appointed editor (though at least two years in, now) I wonder whether Steve Flint has decided that Railway Modeller could be "freshened up" by the inclusion of controversial or opinionated columns written by named indivuduals. As others have observed, it has certainly prompted debate here (and elsewhere I imagine) so I would say it's proved to be a success. Such things are more redolent of the old Model Railways from the 70s. Perhaps, if Railway Modeller has woken up, then maybe it's time to look through its pages again. I gave up reading the Modeller back in about '78 as it and I diverged interests. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PaulRhB Posted January 14, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 14, 2012 It would be interesting to see a mag critique of the Hornby embargo and constructively comment on how the printed press has respected this over the last years... The Embargo is a gentlemens agreement so that it's all released at the same time, if various media break it and Hornby are upset by it then they simply don't have to invite them again. While the other magazines may be annoyed at losing the scoop they are all going to lose it to the Website if the Embargo is adhered to anyway. I think quality of presentation of the news is what counts and personally I think Hornby Mag did it best with good full pics and lists of the releases rather than just text to sift through. Back to nit picking, Some errors are obvious to the eye, others need pointing out and some can only be gleaned from drawings. Quoting the source of prototype info that highlights and error is always an advantage as it can lead to the source if that too is in error. Forums have the advantage to quickly post relevant pictures to support the comments made and suggest solutions but can also carry the incensed ott comments too. What I think the writer missed in RM is that, without being an active member of the forums he criticises, he hasn't seen the editing that goes on to remove the extreme opinions. Having both extremes of opinion though doesn't hurt as long as the information is there for you to make an informed decidson if it will meet your expectations. Properly composed letters to the manufacturer pointing out errors with good evidence of what sources the critique is based on will allow them to decide if they can change it as Bachmann, Hornby and Heljan have on certain models. Photographs and drawings suitably annotated or naming books, with isbn numbers, and the pages are all good sources to quote. We know certain manufacturers have a presence on here but we can't assume they read all the stuff on their models within a thread and may miss something that would make them look at the model again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dilbert Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 The Embargo is a gentlemens agreement so that it's all released at the same time, if various media break it and Hornby are upset by it then they simply don't have to invite them again. While the other magazines may be annoyed at losing the scoop they are all going to lose it to the Website if the Embargo is adhered to anyway. A 'gentlemen's agreement' is an honour based arrangement. Because there is no formal legal or contractual framework once one or more parties break the agreement, it then becomes worthless (and pointless). This year, and in maintaining a somewhat dubious tradition, a mainstream mag released the information early via two distinct distribution channels. Hornby added to the mess by moving the official release date to the 3rd January. Are Hornby unhappy about this ? Of course not, if they were they would have already implemented a formal structure of agreements. As for activiation of the 'the Website' with the 2012 range, it was interesting to see the reality of this. This year neither RMweb nor MRF (any others?) issued their version of the Hornby announcement. So whatever traffic load these sites would have normally carried concerning the announcement effectively went back to Hornby's own site which most obviously wasn't geared up to take such an additional peak load. I can only suppose that to the webmaster that it would have looked like a DoS attack, when it wasn't. The point I was trying to make in my previous post was that if Mr. de Boer addresses what he perceives are the weaknesses of electronic media such as email groups, fora (telephone?) then that's fine, but will we see an article on how the printed press operates within an artificial Hornby embargo ? The way the Peco website 'works' does reflect to a certain extent the Peco view of electronic media. But who in their right mind would compare a masterpiece with a painting created by a paint-in-numbers technique ?... dilbert Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 dilbert I don't see any relevance in the embargo commentary, other than being a somewhat burnt-out argument from other threads. Is it the only shortcoming that comes to mind of the printed press - a bit of a storm in an electronic teacup about who gets the honour of presenting one article of news first? I'm not in the editor's shoes by any means, but if I was, I think I'd devote column inches to a subject probably closer to my readership's interests. I can't think of anything less likely to prompt me to buy and read the magazine. The defence of printed press' treatment of the embargo would surely be better submitted to the audience who get all worked up on the subject - the online communities prone to frothing behind their keypads. This defence - usually consisting of the practicalities and consequences of commercial printing and publishing has been advocated by third parties certainly in past years, if not this time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted January 15, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 15, 2012 The point I was trying to make in my previous post was that if Mr. de Boer addresses what he perceives are the weaknesses of electronic media such as email groups, fora (telephone?) then that's fine, but will we see an article on how the printed press operates within an artificial Hornby embargo ? I think that is probably a fair comparison but I eventually formed the impression from Mr de Boer's rambling around various subjects that what he was really on about was - for want of a better term - the 'credentials' of 'reviewers' or more appositely of those folk who 'publish a review' be it a written one in a magazine or an electronic one on a website or forum. Which is also why he seems to have introduced the nonsense about 'anonymous' people (i.e. those of us who use screen names). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pennine MC Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 ... I eventually formed the impression from Mr de Boer's rambling around various subjects that what he was really on about was - for want of a better term - the 'credentials' of 'reviewers' or more appositely of those folk who 'publish a review' be it a written one in a magazine or an electronic one on a website or forum. Which is also why he seems to have introduced the nonsense about 'anonymous' people (i.e. those of us who use screen names). I dont think it was his only thrust, far from it - these sorts of pieces are quite openly intended to provoke debate, and surely the mark of a good one is that it touches on several distinct but related themes? But it was a fairly key point I suppose, and one where I'd already clearly said before reading it that it was erroneous. But that said, it is a very valid underlying point - to assess the authoritativeness of a commentator or reviewer, you really have to have some degree of knowledge yourself. If you dont, then I'm sure it's a minefield, and furthermore only contributes to the repeating of errors, the 'bulging granary of railway myth'; as I once saw it referred to. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pennine MC Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 ... The point I was trying to make in my previous post was that if Mr. de Boer addresses what he perceives are the weaknesses of electronic media such as email groups, fora (telephone?) then that's fine, but will we see an article on how the printed press operates within an artificial Hornby embargo ? ... The defence of printed press' treatment of the embargo would surely be better submitted to the audience who get all worked up on the subject - the online communities prone to frothing behind their keypads. This defence - usually consisting of the practicalities and consequences of commercial printing and publishing has been advocated by third parties certainly in past years, if not this time. As Dil has effectively introduced the embargo as a secondary topic, I'll continue I doubt that any one mag would run that sort of feature. If written by a contributor, on the 'editor's opinion may differ' protocol, then the contributor's view might be just a bit too erroneous without being party to said editor's knowledge of the behind the scenes legalities (and which he might understandably not want to reveal). And if the discourse were given 'by' the mag (for instance as an editorial), it could be percieved as an attack by one mag on another and I'm sure they do observe some sort of professional respect for each other. As for next year, whatever the complex and convoluted machinations of Hornby's PR machine or the magazines and their publication, printing and distribution chains, those who want to know the news and then get on with their lives with the minimum of froth will simply digest it from whichever forum it appears on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Phil Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 As Dil has effectively introduced the embargo as a secondary topic, I'll continue As for next year, whatever the complex and convoluted machinations of Hornby's PR machine or the magazines and their publication, printing and distribution chains, those who want to know the news and then get on with their lives with the minimum of froth will simply digest it from whichever forum it appears on. Or magazine Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.