An Open Letter to Clinical Reader

July 19 '09 7:00am edit

Twitter links below have broken due to constantly changing Clinical Reader accounts so I have linked to screenshots.

The latest account on Twitter states that the previous www.twitter.com/clinicalreader account is unaffiliated with the real website and that they haven't officially started tweeting yet.

A screencast of the website's Google cache, dated July 17, 2009 1:43:11 GMT, scrolls to the bottom of the page to show their link to a Twitter account with a url of www.twitter.com/clinicalreader.


July 17 '09 6:40pm edit

Twitter links below have been changed from @clinicalreader to @clinical_tweets. The original account was apparently deleted then reinstated with a new name, and there's a different @clinicalreader account now.

Dear Whoever Is In Charge,

Previously, with your permission, I posted your co-founder's email apology for your company threatening me on Twitter. That was as a result of my critique of your online information resource that implied an endorsement from a United States government agency that does not issue them to commercial services, and using copyrighted images without permission from their creators.

I found two of those images although there were three including the image your company took, altered, told the owner of the image it was a purchased stock photo, then finally removed it.

I replied to accept your co-founder's apology (my reply is here) and stated at the time I also accept inclusion in the medical librarian's section of your page. At the time I believed your company was sincere, learning from mistakes made, and intending to conduct both your online information resource and social media communication channel with integrity and professional responsibility.

That was a false belief as your company has shown over the course of this week.

I have edited a Google Doc that I believe is the source information for the proposed medical librarian section. I no longer wish to be included. Some of the reasons why include your company making a mockery of your threat to me as 'all very funny and great PR', falsely attributing it to Ben Henley, then after 'taking control from... Canadians' (screenshot) once more twisting the words of others to imply endorsement for your company. I have permission from Martha to post the following screenshots since she has a private account:





Your company refers to your information resource as an 'authoritative source' (Beginnings, About) yet nowhere within your website do you identify yourselves by name nor the institutions you are affiliated with so users may verify your level of authority for themselves. Who are you and your Editorial Team (screenshot)? Where are you located?

Your contact information says to contact you via email and Twitter (your 'dedicated beta feedback form' goes to kampyle.com and nothing specific), yet your company now says 'pls use official channels' (screenshot). What are those official channels? Why are you 'happy to be open' one moment then 'not like your predecessors pls use official channels' (screenshot) the next since taking control from the Canadians? When will you decide upon your 'official channels' and have a consistent message to send across all of them?

How is Clinical Reader is an 'authoritative' resource that 'respects all copyrights and legal restrictions on content and access'? (source)

It is not by assessment measures for health information website quality I'm aware of as a librarian. Your website fails all of the Medical Library Association's suggested criteria for identifying sponsorship, for example.

Clinical Reader has, however, become a case study for why a company's social media presence should be included as part of information resource quality assessment measures. Iris is right on track except for one thing: it's not 'hundreds of people have gone from knowing nothing about this service to being sure that everyone at Clinical Reader is completely insane.'

As of Friday morning it's 3,031 people with 3,990 page views on Monday's critique according to Google Analytics.


Sincerely,

Nicole Dettmar, MSIS

Clinical Reader: Starry ethics fail

July 17 '09 7:40am edit

Closing this entry with an open letter to Clinical Reader.

July 15 '09 7:20am edit

Thank you for your support!

July 14 '09 3:42pm edit

With permission from the author, here is the email apology I received this morning from Clinical Reader. I have replied that I accept it.

I would also like to note that there is mention of the above apology on Twitter yet still not a public apology to me as there was for one of the artists yesterday.


July 13 '09 4:00pm edit:



As of this time, Clinical Reader is or already has removed all images I discussed below from their website. I commend them for their quick attention and responsiveness.

However, there was this before that:




I do not remove my blog articles. I am happy to edit when information within them is in need of updating, as am I doing now, or corrections with clear markings as to what is original and what is corrected.

Others speak well about that legal ramifications part.


Original, unedited post below

It is with concern that I've heard about some of my colleagues promoting and collaborating with the newly launched company, Clinical Reader.

Why? (red scrawl emphasis mine)


This above-the-page-fold graphic is intentional (not accidental, this is clear marketing intent to lend quick visual credibility to the organization) and currently displayed everywhere (homepage, sections pages, multimedia page, the newsletter, etc.) throughout the resource.

It is bogus as far as the National Library of Medicine (NLM) is concerned since the U.S. Government doesn't endorse or grant 5 stars to anything. The NLM Copyright Information page offers more elaboration, bold emphasis mine:

Endorsement: NLM does not endorse or recommend any commercial products, processes, or services. The views and opinions of authors expressed on NLM Web sites do not necessarily state or reflect those of the U.S. Government, and they may not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.

But wait, there's more.

Clinical Reader also currently uses two copyrighted images on their Partners (specific original source, copyright notice at bottom) and Advertising pages (from somewhere on Signalnoise). A 'credit' link to a source doesn't honor an image copyright. Even free open source images, such as this set of Springer Images, are often limited to usage for noncommerical purposes. Commercial organizations can well afford to purchase or design their own graphics.

As a medical librarian, I respectfully request that Clinical Reader remove all occurrences of these images from their website immediately. If not, this is my statement of intent that I'll request removal of my blog from their proposed medical librarian resources. I have already notified NLM and the artists involved about these images. All have replied and thanked me for doing so, one noting "They might have credited me, but not cool using my work to sell something."

I uphold the Medical Library Association code of ethics, the Library Society of the World Cod of Ethics, and my professional photographer friends deal with people stealing their copyrighted work all the time. Professional integrity means taking a stand to explain who, what, where, when & why when something is amiss. I'm a bit more direct than some.

Always carefully review new resources (and re-evaluate the old ones from time to time) for information. Any company that falsifies endorsements and displays copyrighted materials for their own use should raise immediate red flags for librarians. How does it reflect on our profession to recommend a resource that is not compliant for accountability to clinicians, faculty, students and your own colleagues regardless of how nice it looks and functions?

An Aggie does not lie, cheat or steal, or tolerate those who do. - Aggie Code of Honor, Texas A&M University, recipient of a 2003 Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) grant that funded my MSIS education in partnership with the University of North Texas.