Thanks for checking the source! I think it gives a much better feel for norms than my short comment.
Itâs the kind of thing that IMO would make a book fail a fact check.
I wouldnât hold forum comments to the same standard as a book. But mistakes also definitely happen in books, even the best ones.
It did not say that mistakes are expected and fine in general, it said it specifically about misgendering and deadnaming, so itâs not relevant to my question.
I quoted it to give an idea of (my interpretation of) the spirit of the norms, not of the letter. In my experience, that norm applies in general (but I am no expert on EA norms). Basically, my interpretation is: âbe kind to fellow humansâ, assume weâre all doing our best to do the most good.
From the other comment:
Why are mistakes within quotations expected and fine? What processes cause good faith mistakes within quotations, particularly when the quote can be copy/âpasted rather than typed from paper?
I would say because weâre all human, it might be a judgment call to tweak a quote for readability or to fit a character count.
I was hoping EA, with its focus on rationality, might care more than average, but your response indicates caring less than average.
I think that EA cares a lot about correctness and encourages writing corrections and accepting them, but is also very pragmatic and collaborative. I really like that it encourages posting potentially wrong things and getting feedback, it seems to lead to great results.
I quoted it to give an idea of (my interpretation of) the spirit of the norms, not of the letter.
So, in my mind, the number one purpose and requirement of quotes is accuracy. But in your mind, quotation marks can just be used for other things, like giving an idea about a spirit, without worrying much about accuracy? Like, a use of a quotation might not be literally true, but as long as the spirit of what youâre doing seems good and accurate, thatâs good enough? Iâm trying to understand the norms/âvalues disagreement going on.
I would say because weâre all human, it might be a judgment call to tweak a quote for readability or to fit a character count.
I donât understand. How does being human give one a reason to tweak a quote? Are you saying people tweak quotes on purpose because they like the tweaked version better and lack respect for quotation accuracy? And that seems OK to you? And you think that attitude is widespread? It is so foreign to me, and so clearly irrational to me, that I struggle to comprehend this.
I personally think that the purpose of text is to share information thatâs decision-relevant, and everything else is secondary.
Being humans gives a reason for making all sorts of mistakes /â imprecise things, I think itâs OK as long as the information is not misleading, otherwise itâs worth sending a (polite) correction.
Thank you for replying several times and sharing your perspective. I appreciate that.
I think this kind of attitude to quotes, and some related widespread attitudes (where intellectual standards could be raised), is lowering the effectiveness of EA as a whole by over 20%. Would anyone like to have a serious discussion about this potential path to dramatically improving EAâs effectiveness?
Thanks for checking the source! I think it gives a much better feel for norms than my short comment.
I wouldnât hold forum comments to the same standard as a book. But mistakes also definitely happen in books, even the best ones.
I quoted it to give an idea of (my interpretation of) the spirit of the norms, not of the letter. In my experience, that norm applies in general (but I am no expert on EA norms).
Basically, my interpretation is: âbe kind to fellow humansâ, assume weâre all doing our best to do the most good.
From the other comment:
I would say because weâre all human, it might be a judgment call to tweak a quote for readability or to fit a character count.
I think that EA cares a lot about correctness and encourages writing corrections and accepting them, but is also very pragmatic and collaborative. I really like that it encourages posting potentially wrong things and getting feedback, it seems to lead to great results.
So, in my mind, the number one purpose and requirement of quotes is accuracy. But in your mind, quotation marks can just be used for other things, like giving an idea about a spirit, without worrying much about accuracy? Like, a use of a quotation might not be literally true, but as long as the spirit of what youâre doing seems good and accurate, thatâs good enough? Iâm trying to understand the norms/âvalues disagreement going on.
I donât understand. How does being human give one a reason to tweak a quote? Are you saying people tweak quotes on purpose because they like the tweaked version better and lack respect for quotation accuracy? And that seems OK to you? And you think that attitude is widespread? It is so foreign to me, and so clearly irrational to me, that I struggle to comprehend this.
I personally think that the purpose of text is to share information thatâs decision-relevant, and everything else is secondary.
Being humans gives a reason for making all sorts of mistakes /â imprecise things, I think itâs OK as long as the information is not misleading, otherwise itâs worth sending a (polite) correction.
Thank you for replying several times and sharing your perspective. I appreciate that.
I think this kind of attitude to quotes, and some related widespread attitudes (where intellectual standards could be raised), is lowering the effectiveness of EA as a whole by over 20%. Would anyone like to have a serious discussion about this potential path to dramatically improving EAâs effectiveness?