4 ms·
The fact that someone is knowledgeable about a subject doesn't exempt them from being a constructive contributor to a discussion. Additionally, no where was it
by BoiledCabbage 9y ago
The fact that someone is knowledgeable about a subject doesn't exempt them from being a constructive contributor to a discussion.
Additionally, no where was it "demanded that you explain in detail". I don't mean to be too blunt here, but there is quite a huge gap of comments between a detailed explanation and what you posted.
As an example: "There were a number of things incorrect in this post. The largest one of them was stating X when in fact Y. For more reading on it, look at Z."
And notably this response required fewer words than those spent defending your initial comment.
- jessriedel 9y ago1. The proper question is "When a commenter is very wrong on a technical topic, is it net-positive for someone with expertise to point this out even if they don't contribute further?". I think the answer is obviously "yes". You seem to be more concerned with whether people are pulling their fair share, vs. being exempt/special, which I claim is the wrong question. 2. Effort scales with detail. The example comment you give is 3 times the effort, and I wouldn't have made the original comment if it required that much detail. My comment took me a few seconds to write, and merely tracking down a URL link for explanation would have made it not worth it. 3. Rebutting the N-th confused post on HN about dark matter doesn't interest me, but the meta point of what contributes to a discussion does interest me.
- BoiledCabbage 9y agoWhat you're writing shows you continue to miss the point.
- jessriedel 9y agoI've engaged with the specifics of each of your points. We may disagree, but it's not because I misunderstood your claims.