[brudgers]

Because HN allows comments to wander...or jump on an airplane to a different continent...reading the article is not a prerequisite for good comments and discussion. The articles are mainly an excuse to type into little boxes.

The main thing that produces good discussion is good comments. The double converse is also the case. And a recognized problem: people read the article to find something negative to say...cherry picked quotations taken uncharitably is a proven method with the bonus of suggesting that the commentor actually read the article (but it is easier if something early in the article is a call to angry typing in outrage).

To put it another way, HN is able to have interesting conversations about lists, diagrams, and landing pages. Thin low information blog posts that are only worth reading for their headlines can spark deep informative comment pages.

To put it another way (again), Ask HN is a ready example of how little catalyst the community needs at times. The article is a spark and if it lands on the right intellectual tinder you get a great inferno.

[For polemic reading the article matters not. Polemitians bring their own tinder to the forest and find fuel in the comments no matter how good.]