Why not? I think this title "Guardian admits WhatsApp story was flawed" reflects the content better. The original title "Flawed reporting about WhatsApp" could

Why not? I think this title "Guardian admits WhatsApp story was flawed" reflects the content better. The original title "Flawed reporting about WhatsApp" could have meant many other things. For example, the article might have complained about flawed reporting of other newspapers. I like this title better, and the likelyhood that I'd have clicked on it would have been less with the original. Just because somebody wrote that rule down doesn't mean you have to follow it, much less enforce it. Do you believe in it yourself, in absolutely every case, or do you follow it just because it is a rule? I'm not trolling, just curious. I find to many people on the net follow rules blindly. Rules are crystallized attitudes of communities. They shape the community, but the community also shapes the rules. If people would never break a rule, not even a little bit, they would either never change, or only change to be more strict over time. Why am I loosing so many words over this? Why do I say you shouldn't bother that much, but then myself bother so much to write this? Because I don't want the moderation on HN to become like Wikipedia or Stack Overflow.