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 wouldn’t bother disclaiming an opinion on—say—SCI versus AMF, as a reasonable person is unlikely to think there’s going to be an ‘FHI view’ on global health interventions) and impact (e.g. in those—astronomically rare—cases I write an asperous criticism of something-or-other, even if its pretty obvious I’m not speaking on behalf of my colleagues, I might want to make extra-sure).
I agree it isn’t 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 ‘defensive’ 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 don’t 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, “Figuratively speaking, I hope we burn the awful edifice of Org Y—wrought out of its crooked and rotten timber from which nothing good and straight was ever made—to 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]”. I get the impression I bite my tongue less than the typical ‘EA org employee’: 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 wouldn’t bother disclaiming an opinion on—say—SCI versus AMF, as a reasonable person is unlikely to think there’s going to be an ‘FHI view’ on global health interventions) and impact (e.g. in those—astronomically rare—cases I write an asperous criticism of something-or-other, even if its pretty obvious I’m not speaking on behalf of my colleagues, I might want to make extra-sure).
I agree it isn’t 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 ‘defensive’ 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 don’t 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, “Figuratively speaking, I hope we burn the awful edifice of Org Y—wrought out of its crooked and rotten timber from which nothing good and straight was ever made—to 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]”. I get the impression I bite my tongue less than the typical ‘EA org employee’: it may be they are wiser, rather than I braver.
Oh Greg your words bounce like sunbeams and drip like honey