-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 631
Use of “we” in news posts #1405
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Comments
👍 Make sense |
I completely agree, "we" should be reserved for ruby core or the ruby-lang.org team. Unless... what about posts signed with sth like "the ConFoo team"; still too confusing (you would have to look at the very end of the post) or acceptable? |
Am Sun, 05 Jun 2016 13:07:33 -0700
If moved to top and written like this: “This is a guest post by the ConFoo team.” I would be fine with it. Simply not using “we” however seems more Vale, |
Agreed, simplest version is avoiding "we" for third-party posts. |
"We" should not be used in third-party news posts, since it invokes the association that it refers to the Ruby core or ruby-lang.org teams. See issue #1405.
Avoid use of "we" as mentioned on ruby#1405. Beside that, fix some translations.
Avoid use of "we" as mentioned on ruby#1405. Beside that, fix some translations.
It looks like this issue was taken care of, but never closed and should be closed. |
Thanks @jonjensen <3 |
Hi everyone,
while translating the ConFoo Vancouver 2016 post I thought about these lines (emphasis by me):
This post on ruby-lang.org invokes the association that this “we” refers to the Ruby core developers, or the organisation running ruby-lang.org (RubyCentral?). I think that the use of “we” and related pronouns is best reserved for referring to the Ruby core developers themselves as ruby-lang.org is the official website of the Ruby programming language, which is best represented by its core developer team (as in “we are happy to announce Ruby 2.3.0”). Any other use of “we” is misguiding and should best be avoided.
In this particular case, I would rather have suggested to use something like (differences emphasized):
What do you think?
Valete,
Marvin
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: