Re: more than you wanted to know -OT
VTAndy3
>Sorry for the length of this, but it struck a chord:
I really appreciate your open statement about these concerns, Adam. I am one who would have appreciated hearing Mike's perspective in that article.
I do sympathize with those who would like to see minimal conflict of interest in articles; however, I also feel that there is a difference between turning an article into a mouthpiece for a corporate tool manufacturer and acknowledging the expert advice of a small-scale toolmaker like Mike. The only thing that would raise eyebrows from me is if someone makes a sweeping generalization without specifics backing it up -- like if sawmaker x says that the original saws by current slightly larger builder y are no good any more, then doesn't provide specifics. In that case, magazines do appear to be providing a form of unmediated advertizing. In the case of wood magazines in general, I've come to expect that to a certain degree, the articles themselves are sometimes accidental advertizements. I mean, I enjoyed the recent FW article about LN, but it was almost indistinguishable from one of those paid inserts that a company can get in a bigger magazine. I didn't care because I like that they are focussing on hand tools somewhat. Woodworking Magazine seems to be setting a much higher standard of objectivity, with reviews that are more comparative -- i.e., they will actually note that among 4 widgets, one is _not_ recommended, rather than reviewing only one widget and hyping it. (FW does comparative reviews but I find the ratings to be arbitrary -- probably just me and not an opinion shared by others).
Also, I believe that on a certain scale, the conflicts of interest are just not important any more. You can buy a tool made by a large manufacturer by filling out an online form and never deal with them personally. But anyone who orders a saw from Mike Wenzloff or a plane from Larry Williams is going to deal with them personally about the specifics of the tool, and there will be at least a brief personal connection. Does this mean that all of their customers are biased and should not write reviews due to conflict of interest? How much money do people think is at stake here, anyway?
What I loved about your saw article, Adam, is the user's perspective, and if this means that a handful of manufacturers look to Mike W as an influence, and another half place a load of orders for Mike's saws (which I know I will as soon as my wallet is ready), then one can hardly blame a conflict of interest.
A final point that is not intended to be an accusation but is intended to prompt some thinking:
Back in January when I posed some questions about jointer planes, you (Adam) posted a criticism of the responses that I was getting, in which you argued that we need to take stock of the consumerism behind threads like that. This did influence me to find a reasonable old Stanley #7 rather than spend big bucks on a new one. But this does raise the question: what is so much more objectionable to you about someone suggesting to someone else to buy a certain new low-angle jack than someone else suggesting a new saw from a specific maker?
Personally, I look for balance and use my own judgement when evaluating opinions in articles and posts. I do not take sweeping put-downs (like "x are awful") too seriously, nor do I see positive reviews as much more than letting me know that a given product is out there. I remember Chris Schwartz's statements a while back here when his LN videos came out -- he made it very clear what lengths he goes to in order to maintain integrity, and one would have to be very cynical indeed to disregard what he said. So please, write for those who hold you in high regard, not for those whom you suspect would pick at every nit -- they'll do that anyhow!
-Andy, who has loved every one of your articles, enjoyed reading your posts in the archives here (especially the "Challenge"), and who will be one of the first in line -- as you know -- to buy your book, whenever that may be!
