On Friday I posted a link on the AccountingWEB site to my entry on this blog on income shifting. Given that I was writing about comments made there that seemed fair.
On Saturday morning I noticed that the number of visits being made through the link had not risen since Friday night - which surprised me. So I checked the link.
When doing so I discovered that the link on the AccountingWEB site had been edited. The text still suggested that it was to this blog. But the hyperlink associated with that text had changed. It took the reader to a spoof article on AccountingWEB.
I was amazed. I have been an editor on AccountingWEB in my time and as such I know how their system works. Only an editor could have done this. And this turned out to be true. Nichola Ross Martin, tax editor of Accounting WEB admitted that she had received comments on my article and so she had edited the link. She admitted that perhaps she should have called me first.
I think that something of an understatement. My article suggested that in my opinion some in the profession were commenting unprofessionally on an indefensible tax practice from which they wish to continue to benefit, in my opinion unethically. To find that a link to an article which sought to promote higher professional standards of debate and conduct had been edited in such an underhand, and in my opinion unethical, fashion was quite astonishing.
But I suppose it proves my point: when the comments on taxation articles on AccountingWEB are treated as a joke by its editor why should anyone else take them seriously?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
It would appear you have upset someone (again) Richard.
AWeb are under no obligation to post your link, however, I agree with you, I remember sometime ago (about 2 years) they deleted one of my postings that was offering help, because part of it was considered an advert, yet all it was, was a link to where the poster needed to go.
AWeb should do well to remember it is only where it is as long as it provides a useful forum, and should it decide to start deleting links that the editor does not like then such sensorship may well cause contributors to look elsewhere.
The interesting thing about AWeb is it is easy to replicate, I have always wondered why no one haas bothered, I wonder is there not the money in it?
Edited links v edited comments.
I am none too sure about your feuding with Accountingweb, as the thread has about 80 posts on it, but you certainly steamed in on the attack there. I don’t know your history with them and I do not want to get involved in arguments about income shifting which are no my area.
I laughed when I saw your comment here about “editing in an underhand fashion”, I am reminded about your comment to me when I last tried to post a comment here:
“There is a moderation policy on the Tax Research blog.
Your comments do not meet the requirement for publication.
Criticism is welcome. But it must be constructive. Your comments are not constructive. I will not waste my readers time by allowing them to be posted. .
Regards
Richard”
As you can guess you did not like my comments in that instance. I have to think again, how can anybody take you seriously when you just do not publish all the comments and allow freedom of speech on your site?
Daniel
As Jason makes clear, there is also a moderation policy on AccountingWEB.
A blog manager has a duty to moderate to remove offensive and untrue material. I also have reservations about posting comments form unidentifiable people.
In addition, as my comment to you made clear, comments made that lack reasoned argument are not welcome here. AccountingWEB would be much better off if it applied the same rule. I know of many accountants who will not read it for precisely that reason.
But what I would never do is edit a comment in an underhand way. That is the conduct I objected to.
Richard