Difference between revisions of "Talk:Editing Guidelines"
(Created page with "Note on Dishonesty [by Margaret]: I certainly agree that dishonesty, or flat out saying p when one believes that p is false, is usually a bad policy, specifically in the conte...") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | Note on Dishonesty [by Margaret]: I certainly agree that dishonesty, or flat out saying p when one believes that p is false, is usually a bad policy, | + | Note on Dishonesty [by Margaret]: I certainly agree that dishonesty, or flat out saying p when one believes that p is false, is usually a bad policy, and that it is almost always a bad policy in the context of presenting reasons and evidence (like that of this wiki and the views of others it is evaluating). That said, I think it is pretty clear that accusations of dishonesty without sufficient evidence tend to do more harm than good. I take it to be pretty obvious that being called a liar by others (especially without but even with sufficient evidence) makes one much less receptive to their message, and that others seeing one call someone a liar without sufficient evidence will make these others less receptive to one's message (especially but not only if they are either neutral or somewhat sympathetic towards the accused). I actually believe that this has been empirically documented by sources on effective advocacy such as those listed by the Center for Effective Vegan Advocacy (http://www.veganadvocacy.org/), but I lack specific sources at the moment. I would only emphasize, as Melanie Joy has recently, that these lessons about effective communication generalize from communicating with carnists to communicating to our fellow vegan advocates - including the importance of avoiding insufficiently substantiated accusations of dishonesty. |
Revision as of 23:29, 26 November 2017
Note on Dishonesty [by Margaret]: I certainly agree that dishonesty, or flat out saying p when one believes that p is false, is usually a bad policy, and that it is almost always a bad policy in the context of presenting reasons and evidence (like that of this wiki and the views of others it is evaluating). That said, I think it is pretty clear that accusations of dishonesty without sufficient evidence tend to do more harm than good. I take it to be pretty obvious that being called a liar by others (especially without but even with sufficient evidence) makes one much less receptive to their message, and that others seeing one call someone a liar without sufficient evidence will make these others less receptive to one's message (especially but not only if they are either neutral or somewhat sympathetic towards the accused). I actually believe that this has been empirically documented by sources on effective advocacy such as those listed by the Center for Effective Vegan Advocacy (http://www.veganadvocacy.org/), but I lack specific sources at the moment. I would only emphasize, as Melanie Joy has recently, that these lessons about effective communication generalize from communicating with carnists to communicating to our fellow vegan advocates - including the importance of avoiding insufficiently substantiated accusations of dishonesty.
