CONTENT, INTEGRITY, & CONFLICT OF INTEREST

It’s important that audiences know the context and source of the information for independent content they consume about commercial products, features, or services, and how they’re used. That way, audiences can interpret this information and make decisions, appropriately. For facts, this means that the author should references their sources. For opinions, it means that the author should be transparent about bias, influence, and use of AI.

 

  • Is the author employed by a vendor of a product they make content about?

  • Does the author benefit from creating this content or sharing their opinion?
    For instance, are they paid directly by a vendor, indirectly by their affiliates, or do they belong to a community incentive program, like the MVP program?

  • Is the author’s opinion (and their words) genuine, or do they come from someone else (or something else, like generative AI, in part or in full)?

  • Is the author free to share their opinion without influence or suppression; are they “afraid to bite a hand that feeds” in the content that they produce, or not?

  • Does the author fairly share a balanced view of both the pros and cons, or do they only take one specific stance to push a specific agenda or sentiment?

  • Does the author use a tone, language, and imagery that’s informative, or is it designed promote a particular point-of-view?

When content authors are not sufficiently transparent, it can mislead audiences.

 

It’s important that we as independent content creators are bound by a kind of code of ethics and integrity. This is even more important as the pace of technological change increases, generative AI becomes more prevalent, and the boundaries between “content” and “marketing” continue to become murky and grey. Conversations and experiences I’ve had at events and with customers in the last year have made this something I’m increasingly concerned about, so I share some unfiltered thoughts about it, here.

Henceforth, you’ll see a disclaimer in my content that looks something like the following, which is a result of my own self-reflections on this topic and how I can be more transparent in the stuff I make.

Potential conflict-of-interest disclaimer:

I do not write any sponsored content; I'm not paid to produce content for data-goblins.com. In the interest of transparency, I declare here any potential conflicts-of-interest about products that I write about.

Tabular Editor and Tabular Tools: I am paid by Tabular Editor part-time to produce trainings and learning material.

Microsoft Fabric and Power BI: I am part of the Microsoft MVP program, which you can read about here. The MVP Program rewards community contributions, like articles such as these I write in my spare time. The program has benefits such as "early access to Microsoft products" and technical subscriptions like for Visual Studio and Microsoft 365. It is also a source of valuable community engagement and inter-personal support from many talented individuals around the world.

I am also paid by Microsoft part-time to produce documentation and learning content.

I share my own personal opinions, criticisms, and thoughts without influence or endorsement from Microsoft, Tabular Editor, and Tabular Tools, and do my best to remain objective and unbiased.

The following sections reflect my subjective thoughts on this topic as I consider how to better reflect this in my own content, moving forward.

 
 

CONTENT

More people than ever are dependent on independent content creators for information about news, products, technology, and learning. Audiences base important decisions on this content; companies decide their purchases and strategy, teams decide policies, processes, and approaches, and individuals decide what they’ll learn or do. These decisions have consequences, both in the short-term and long-term. However, audiences are not always made aware of the context about the content that they consume.

  • The blogpost you read might have been 80% AI-generated and contain unintentional hallucinations, omissions, or insinuations.

  • The video you watched might endorse a commercial product that uses open source projects without crediting the original authors.

  • The tutorial you followed might present an approach intentionally as the “one true way”, when it deliberately did not discuss alternative approaches or shortcomings.

 
 

  • When authors use generative AI to produce content, they can misattribute the content as having been originally created by themselves. Without getting pedantic about AI and IP ownership, they are taking credit for something that they did not do; an LLM did. This can mislead audiences, particularly when audiences follow a creator for a longer time and form an idea of who the author is.

    • Authors should clearly state what part of the content is AI-generated, if any. This includes whether text was “re-phrased” or if images are generated.

    • Authors should state the tool used, at minimum.

    • For larger works taken verbatem from a generative AI, it might make sense to also disclose the chain (meta)prompts. Some prompts can reveal intention and perspectives that an audience isn’t aware of. However, this can easily become too demanding for an author.

  • When an author uses ideas that aren’t their own, they can misattribute these ideas as coming from themselves. Similarly, they can take credit for something that isn’t theirs. This can happen with images, words, code, ideas, and even sometimes styles (when they’re copied and not adapted).

    • Cite the source of information and ideas that don’t come from yourself so that the audience can find it back. This means citing the original source.

    • If you refer to a blogpost and the idea doesn’t originate there either, then this is no better than not citing it at all.

    • If you adopt a style or adapt a diagram that you didn’t originally create (and you don’t have IP rights to do this without attribution), you should cite the source of this style or the original diagram, including the author and link.

  • When an author discusses a product, service, or feature, they can over-focus on positive or negative aspects in order to drive a specific agenda or sentiment. This can mislead audiences into drawing false conclusions and making wrong decisions. While it can be useful to discuss specific use-cases, it’s still essential to present shortcomings and make an honest attempt at disclosing that multiple perspectives exist. Not all content must be impartial, but at the very least, the audience should know that multiple perspectives do exist and where to find alternate sources of information.

    It’s fine to advocate for a specific tool or approach that you believe in, so long as the context and motivations are sufficiently transparent for an audience.

    • Consider including both pros and cons when discussing products and use-cases. Present indications as well as contra-indications.

    • Present evidence when advocating for one tool or approach being better than another. Be specific and concrete in the claim, and be honest in how this interpretation grounds to real-world scenarios.

    • Present alternative techniques and approaches, if they exist, or information about where an audience can learn about them; don’t present an approach as the “one true way”.

    • Consider more unbiased, objective language in informative content, avoiding to call things “perfect”, “flawless”, or “groundbreaking”, when such language comes with implicit meanings that can mislead layman audiences.

 

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Content like articles, videos, and livestreams reflect the subjective experience of the author. With that, they can also reflect that author’s biases; the author might be paid by an organization, receive incentives to produce their content, or could have even been explicitly asked to share a specific opinion or endorse a specific product. However, if this context isn’t shared transparently, the audience isn’t aware of it, and can mistake these opinions as genuine. Without this context, audiences can’t make informed decisions, and the decisions they make can lead to unfortunate or unintended consequences.

  • The blog you read might advocate for a specific tool or approach, but the author is employed by the company who makes that tool or created the approach.

  • The video you watched might excitedly talk about a new tool or feature, but the author was asked to make it in exchange for free or early access.

  • The LinkedIn post about “5 reasons why I don’t use tool X and you shouldn’t either” might be written by a professional who belongs to a community incentive program for tool Y and benefits both directly and indirectly from writing and sharing this post.

 
 

  • An author might receive something in exchange for the content they create, or even in order to create it. For instance, they might receive a free license, early access, or a free trip to meet and provide feedback. These exchanges might have no influence on the final result, but they can result in bias.

    • State whether you received anything in exchange for (or to enable) the creation of the content.

    • Explain any other exchanges that occurred between the author and the vendor.

  • When an author is employed by a vendor and produces independent content, their content can (intentionally or not) be biased toward that vendor. There is a potential conflict of interest. It’s important to disclose these professional relationships in the independent content so that audiences are aware of that context.

    • State employment by a vendor on a blog or channel if producing content about that vendor’s products or services.

    • State any professional affiliations with the vendor or product.

  • If the author belongs to community incentive programs like the Microsoft Most Valuable Professional program or Tableau Ambassadors / Visionaries, this is also a potential source of bias or conflict-of-interest that should be disclosed. These programs provide benefits and a potential external incentive for community members to create content that favorable towards the vendors products, so that these authors can continue to belong to their respective communities. Furthermore, these programs and communities can (usually unintentionally) create negative incentives or pressure where authors in these programs are afraid to create critical content, out of fear that they might “bite the hand that feeds” and hurt themselves commercially or socially.

    • State clearly any affiliation with community incentive programs, and explain it so that the audience can understand why this might be a source of bias.

    • Clarify if the program permits or encourages you to freely share your own opinion, including whether respectfully sharing critial perspectives is encouraged.