As a matter of personal rule,

[MineralMan]

if I post an excerpt of someone else's published opinion about something, I always append a statement regarding my opinion of what that other person wrote. Whether I agree or disagree, I will make it clear what I think of the excerpt I have quoted.

It has always puzzled me when people post something written by someone else, but do not indicate their agreement or disagreement with what they have posted. That strategy of omitting comment is often used to demean someone or some group, with impunity. It is not an innocent posting of something, if it presents anyone or any concept in a negative way.

If you agree with something you post, please say so. If you disagree, say that. If you say nothing, you reveal nothing and raise many questions. If I post someone else's opinion, I will add my opinion about that opinion. That is the only ethical thing to do, I believe.

With that, I'm out.

[HopeAgain]

1. What if it is just interesting?

I read a lot of stuff that is just interesting and I may or may not have an opinion. I presume that may be true for some of those who have shared articles on here. I have appreciated some of the interesting articles that have been shared on this thread regardless of the poster's personal opinions. I am asking, because I really don't know, would that be inconsistent with the purpose of a forum? Should they be shared in a different way?

[MineralMan]

2. If I don't have an opinion about an opinion piece,

I wouldn't post it at all. Otherwise, I'd state my agreement or disagreement, as I said above.

I feel that way, regardless of where I am. Why would I post someone else's opinion without comment. Frankly, I almost never post excerpts of opinion pieces. I'm perfectly capable of writing my own opinion pieces, so that's what I do, normally. Typically, the only things I post from other sources are straight news stories. Those get comments from me, as well.

[HopeAgain]

3. Thank you

I kinda missed the distinction between straight stories and opinion pieces.

[guillaumeb]

4. It is good to have habits and rules.

On the other hand, I have read many of Don Viejo's posts and have never seen a response from that poster, or an indication of how the poster feels about an issue.

[Curmudgeoness]

5. Who made you the rule maker?

So anyone who does not expound on their opinions in the OP is unethical now? Whoa, doggie.

Maybe you don't care, but sometimes, it is interesting to see other peoples' reactions to an article without the OP steering the conversation. When the OP adds their opinion, it can make the conversation go from being about the article to being an attack or a lovefest on the OP's comments. That ruins the whole point of trying to have a discussion on the article...so the OP may as well just post their opinion and screw adding the article.

Face it, different people have different reasons for posting as they do. There is nothing dishonest about one way or the other.

[MineralMan]

6. My rules are rules only for myself.

I don't have any control over what anyone else does. That's why I called it my personal rule. Personal is the operant word.

[Curmudgeoness]

8. Sure, you said it was your personal rule.

Then you went further and said "That is the only ethical thing to do." I would guess that meant that it was unethical if you don't comment. You have no comment on the reasons why someone may want to drive the discussion without commenting ahead of time, just focus on one thing here?

If it is a personal rule, for you alone, why are you preaching to the rest of us?

[Igel]

7. While MM did say, right up front, it was his personal rule

it's generally a good practice.

Once had a boss who wrote things for a non-profit. I was an assistant, shared by several people above me, and got to edit what he wrote. He'd read, synthesize, and publish for an in-house audience. Often he'd build his arguments and logic on the quotes of others, facts and claims and conclusions adduced by other writers.

I told him that much of the material in quotes was bullshit. It was old, biased, disconfirmed.

And he said that they weren't his claims and so he wasn't responsible for them.

I also told him that many of the claims and conclusions, much of the factual content, was taken out of context. In context, it didn't mean what he was using it to mean.

And he said that if the people were so stupid that they didn't check out the sources, he wasn't responsible for their ignorance and stupidity. He was upset with me because he didn't have a clue what I thought about these answers. I just stared at him, deadpan, having learned that telling him he was an ignorant, deceitful, odious jackass was not a winning strategy conducive to having a happy day doing more routine things at work.

This was in the days when I'd rummage through the National Union Catalog and its appendices to track down references. When there might be a couple of copies in the US, or perhaps only one, of a work and I'd ILL the thing. When I'd sit and pore over microfilm and microfiche to track down sources and references for my bosses.

The very idea that the typical reader had any chance of ever seeing the work in question was laughable. The idea that they'd stop and review the literature to judge something published in 1889 or 1921 was ridiculous. That's what they thought they were paying him for. They trusted him to evaluate the sources and present not just "hey, somebody said this" but "somebody said this and I have reasons for thinking the claim sound."

It works like this: You post something, it's assumed you think it's true. If it's not true and you post it, the assumption, one that's widely enough shared to be known to the poster, is that you nonetheless believe it to be true. For that, it's assumed you have reasons for this belief. If it's just random noise, then it's just random noise and the value of DU is much diminished.