I sometimes disclaim (versus trying to always disclose relevant CoI), with a rule-of-thumb along the lines of the expected disvalue of being misconstrued as presenting a corporate view of my org.
This is a mix of likelihood (e.g. I probably wouldnât bother disclaiming an opinion onâsayâSCI versus AMF, as a reasonable person is unlikely to think thereâs going to be an âFHI viewâ on global health interventions) and impact (e.g. in thoseâastronomically rareâcases I write an asperous criticism of something-or-other, even if its pretty obvious Iâm not speaking on behalf of my colleagues, I might want to make extra-sure).
I agree it isnât ideal (cf. Twitter, where it seems a lot of people need to expressly disclaim retweets are not endorsements, despite this norm being widely acknowledged and understood). Alas, some âdefensiveâ writing may be necessary if there are uncharitable or malicious members of ones audience, and on the internet this can be virtually guaranteed.
Also, boilerplate disclaimers donât magically prevent what you say reflecting upon your affiliates. I doubt EA org X, who has some association with Org Y, would be happy with a staffer saying something like, âFiguratively speaking, I hope we burn the awful edifice of Org Yâwrought out of its crooked and rotten timber from which nothing good and straight was ever madeâto the ground, extirpate every wheedling tendril of its fell influence in our community, and salt the sewage-suffused earth from whence it came [speaking for myself, not my employer]â. I get the impression I bite my tongue less than the typical âEA org employeeâ: it may be they are wiser, rather than I braver.
I sometimes disclaim (versus trying to always disclose relevant CoI), with a rule-of-thumb along the lines of the expected disvalue of being misconstrued as presenting a corporate view of my org.
This is a mix of likelihood (e.g. I probably wouldnât bother disclaiming an opinion onâsayâSCI versus AMF, as a reasonable person is unlikely to think thereâs going to be an âFHI viewâ on global health interventions) and impact (e.g. in thoseâastronomically rareâcases I write an asperous criticism of something-or-other, even if its pretty obvious Iâm not speaking on behalf of my colleagues, I might want to make extra-sure).
I agree it isnât ideal (cf. Twitter, where it seems a lot of people need to expressly disclaim retweets are not endorsements, despite this norm being widely acknowledged and understood). Alas, some âdefensiveâ writing may be necessary if there are uncharitable or malicious members of ones audience, and on the internet this can be virtually guaranteed.
Also, boilerplate disclaimers donât magically prevent what you say reflecting upon your affiliates. I doubt EA org X, who has some association with Org Y, would be happy with a staffer saying something like, âFiguratively speaking, I hope we burn the awful edifice of Org Yâwrought out of its crooked and rotten timber from which nothing good and straight was ever madeâto the ground, extirpate every wheedling tendril of its fell influence in our community, and salt the sewage-suffused earth from whence it came [speaking for myself, not my employer]â. I get the impression I bite my tongue less than the typical âEA org employeeâ: it may be they are wiser, rather than I braver.
Oh Greg your words bounce like sunbeams and drip like honey