3 ms·
> I'll write these articles in an authoritative voice, because a text that constantly moderates and qualifies its assertions easily becomes unreadable. Don't co
by defined 9y ago
> I'll write these articles in an authoritative voice, because a text that constantly moderates and qualifies its assertions easily becomes unreadable. Don't consider the tone an indication that I'm certain that I'm right.
Kudos for including this disclaimer.
The article can be trim and readable, while the disclaimer acts to dissuade well-meaning reviewers (like - ahem - me), who sometimes value precision and accuracy more than the big picture, from nitpicking it to death.
- vog 9y agoIn other words: strong opinions, loosely held. Shouldn't this be the default expectation, for every article we read, anyway? Such a disclaimer makes only sense if the article was written by some very famous author who must reasonably fear that their advice is taken too dogmatically. Speaking of that, I've never seen people like Martin Fowler make such a disclaimer.
- c3534l 9y agoDepends on the audience, really. You have to already know a fair bit before you can critically evaluate the speaker.
- mikekchar 9y agoTo be fair, Martin Fowler's entire blog is a "bliki" because he intends to (and does) change his entries often. He's even ripped out entire swathes of his writing when he thinks he's wrong (occasionally frustrating when you think he's wrong about being wrong ;-) ). I assume he doesn't make such a disclaimer because he thinks everyone already realises it -- but I have to agree that it would be nice if he (and other people as well) did. A lot of times people seem to think that reading something from a well known author is equivalent to permission to turn their brains off :-( Instead of, "Oh, that's amazing! Let's try it", they think, "Oh, that's amazing! We don't have to try it".