| I get that this is an issue that bothers PG. I also get that this particular comment you're singling out might be an example of it, but I'm not sure. However, I'm not convinced that every instance that looks like the alleged problem is really a problem in itself and, perhaps I am in a minority, do not believe this sort of thing is the downfall of HN. For me, I think the issues that make discussions go "downhill" are less to do with criticism and much more to do with prevalence of group-think. I don't think the prevailing wisdom that pointing out fundamental errors of facts of faulty arguments is a bad thing, even if they are not the main point of the article. I think there is edifying value in such criticism. Now, it is true that an article may have value beyond it's minor or major inherent fallacies and errors. Criticism is not censorship and it does not prevent others from reading and discussing other parts of an article if they are interesting and fodder for good conversation. Nevertheless, I don't think being overly generous or charitable necessarily the best method or should be enforced via an algorithm or community brow beating. No one wants inane Reddit conversations but I don't think most want sterile group-think or hug sessions either. HN has all kinds of users with different backgrounds and some users are very knowledgeable and critical and we can learn a lot of have great discussion regarding the criticism as the more traditionally positive style conversations. If we eliminated this sort of discussion from HN, I think it would make things much worse than better, Valley group-think would rule the day. One thing I think users that come to HN expect is good information either in the articles or to find the proper information in the comments. If we let erroneous information stand because of we want to be nice or follow Atwood's "ruthlessly civil" or whatever the hell his ideology is, I think we would less a great benefit of HN discussions and users, particularly less experienced ones, would be worse off. If I'm new, and I see an HN submission that says eBay and Netflix are startups and that clearly is a significant part of the article and as well there are many comments on HN, but with no contention of that issue anywhere to be found, I may well think that the community consensus is that eBay is a startup. On other articles that get submitted, I may conclude that the smart people on HN think all manner of pseudoscience and homeopathy are generally accepted, if I wasn't aware of there being new a impetus to avoid criticism. I personally don't want what is suggested by this random author:
http://www.modernperlbooks.com/mt/2013/03/mrs-feynmans-advic... >Is your problem that the hearty self congratulation mutual admiration society on Hacker News (now there's a middlebrow dismissal!) thinks that something you like isn't as new and shiny as something you don't care about? (oddly enough I think that article is relevant to the original topic)
I think that comment is somewhat unfair to HN but if we are not careful and are to act to hastily toward criticism we may just end up with a "mutual admiration society." Let's no do that. :) |