Whether the organisation be wikipedia or the ASPCA; what is our stance on personal opinions about outside organisations?

Taking a quote from this post When is declawing a viable option for cats? to use as an example:

This is not the ASPCA, or HSUS who are political businesses with an agenda. This is a vet stating the truth about the feline anatomy.

this is no means personal to this person, just an example

| |
  • 1
    Your question says it all, really... Opinion is, quite often, a reason to close something because we're not really intended to form a debate here. :) – John Cavan Oct 12 '13 at 3:19
  • ASPCA and HSUS Are non profit organisations who spend the vast majority of their funds on lobbying and marketing. They spend less than 1% to help animals or shelters directly. That is not meant to be judgment on them. Though I have plenty of that i can give as well. – user9 Oct 13 '13 at 4:15

I suspect as with anything on this site, we should try to be as impartial as possible. We are all going to have different ideas about organizations we love and hate and want to support and don't want to support, and it is rare that our personal opinions in that sense will have anything to do with our ability to give a impartial fact based answer.

Even when you can cite negative opinions towards a specific organization, I still think there should be room for caution, as it is also likely that someone else will be able to point towards the positives of that organization in another post.

As with many things on SE, the more facts and such that we can prove to back up opinions and the like, the better off we will be. This is not a forum, after all, so we want to make sure we avoid discussions, and I think that opinions on organizations could quickly become long discussions and possibly arguments, and thus should be avoided.

| |

I have not read the source material, only what you have cited in this post.

I think the vet having to clarify his stance with a negative referral to the organizations he is not a part of was unnecessary. Then-again, I am a master of abusing the unnecessary, but I try to keep things positive if possible.

A question which discusses an organization is this one, which implies negativity towards Marshall Farms, the largest ferret breeder in the U.S. Understandably my answer to the question cites negative attitudes of third parties towards Marshall Farms, but the answer I provide does not put the company in a negative light; it tries to state as close to fact as can be presented and deliberately points out when statements cannot be fact-checked.

I have also related my experience with a pet insurance company, but I tried to state only facts, which I can back up with paperwork if necessary. At no point did I disparage the company I used.

I think keeping personal opinion towards organizations without cited justification or explanations of personal experience should be kept out of answers or justifiably excised by editors with explanation in the comments.

| |
  • 1
    I think your first question is a great example of how to answer questions that could otherwise be very opinion based. The second one is slightly less good only for the fact that it doesn't try and generalise the points you learned from personal experience, e.g. look out for an insurance that doesn't have a maximum annual cap. – ThomasH Oct 12 '13 at 20:43
  • Good point, @ThomasH . When I have a moment in the coming day, I think I'll go about generalizing that second answer. – JoshDM Oct 12 '13 at 21:02

Personal opinions have little room on Stack Exchange sites.

If the article you link supplements your answer by adding quality detail to it, so be it.

If it does not, don't link to it.

It has little to do whether an organization is evil, good, cares for animals, does not, interested in politics or has its opinions skewed in favor of this or the other agenda.

If the article they posted is of high quality, and helps your answer be better, I don't see why the community should have any sort of opinion on that.

| |

You must log in to answer this question.