7

Recently I've been (rightly) picked up on answering a question from a particualrly perspective and not flagging this up in the answer (here and here)

I think in both cases I would have been very happy for someone to edit the answer and put at the bottom

Note this answer is from the Theravada tradition

Or words to this effect

Does this seem like an acceptable edit to people? For lower rep users it would always be QAed and in every case the original poster can always rollback (which should be the final word i think). We could agree on a standard format for these edits maybe?

Just on a personal note - it's not always forefront in my mind what perspective I am answering questions from because the sangha I practice with is eclectic. Therefore I would be grateful for these kind of edits - it would serve as a reminder to me and help improve the quality of my answers.

4

I'm very much in favor of including the particular viewpoint (school/tradition) from which an answer is given as much as possible and where relevant. IMHO any good answer should include this information.

However I'm very much wondering if, in most cases, it is possible for someone else to correctly identify from which particular viewpoint an answer is given. There are so many different kinds of Buddhist traditions, it's probably easy to make false assumptions. Other people may erroneously add that an answer is based on one popular tradition while in fact it is from a smaller, more obscure tradition. That's why I'd like to see the original author add it him/herself. If he/she doesn't include it and it is important for that question/answer, we can always ask to include it using comments.

2

Yes.

If we imagine the alternative, then answerers will have to post a survey of a dozen of traditions on each topic.

On the otherhand, people will have to realize that if one person asks-- What happens after we die? (tagged , ) is not a duplicate of "What happens after we die? (tagged ) and isn't a duplicated of "What happens after we die? (tagged ), which as far as I know have very different answers.

  • We should remember that most of the site traffic should come from search engines and such users might not be familiar with the tagging system (or might have no idea what 'pure land' is). They would just look at the question/title and read one or a few top answers. Thus I believe that relying solely on tags would not solve the problem at all. – Rabbit Aug 11 '14 at 9:48
  • Your answer is that questions should be tagged so that answers are from that one perspective. The meta-question was asking, when questions aren't tagged then should answers be 'tagged'. – ChrisW Aug 24 '15 at 10:55
  • Good point. I guess this topic would have been better for the general SE meta site since that is a feature that doesn't exist yet. – MatthewMartin Aug 24 '15 at 14:46
2

Even within a particular tradition there are variations of interpretations among teachers and lineages. So if this is important as answer is from a particular viewpoint then it should be mentioned at the discretion of the poster.

0

Why don't we add a dropdown list in the Profile section of every registered respondent requiring a person to choose an item from the list, or add another category that will automatically be added to the list, as a condition of registration? Thus, anyone wanting to know the dogmatic orientation of a respondent would only need to click on their profile? This could even be indicated beside their name if the forum thinks that this is appropriate.

  • Adding a dropdown would require changing the web site software, which we can't. Theoretically we (community/moderators) could instead require/bully users to edit that info into their profile, but IMO that would be quite a big change to the current laissez-faire and there isn't enough community consensus (that that's necessary/desirable) to initiate that as an agreed policy. – ChrisW Nov 19 '16 at 19:39

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .