3 ms·

Well now you're really just projecting. The author's point, made in your quoted paragraph and then again in the following two, was clearly that people who are i

Well now you're really just projecting. The author's point, made in your quoted paragraph and then again in the following two, was clearly that people who are in difficult situations or neuroatypical may be disruptive to "the norms" a lot of users are used to and how to accommodate that. I think you would have to intentionally take the most uncharitable interpretation of this article to think the authors point was "these people shouldn't be able to take part".

droithomme 7y ago
No. That is false and disingenuous. They explicitly stated concern that homeless etc people would be able to "join the conversation." It's not an interpretation. It's what they actually stated clearly and explicitly, as a matter of fact on record. This is their exact quote about categories of contributors they had concern with: > for example, homeless people and very sick people and disabled people can join the conversation
- tidenly 7y ago
  Sorry, I might be missing something but can you point out where the author is saying they're against this or that its a "concern"? They say it can be disruptive - and explicitly say to whom it is disruptive ("people who don't run into the kinds of people normally" i.e the masses) but I'm not seeing this explicit point where the author says it's a bad thing - only that it's a challenge to moderate everyone tactfully. Can you help me out?
- andreareina 7y ago
  There are whole paragraphs devoted to how to let these people give their relevant first-hand experience without derailing the conversation or getting ganged up on. That doesn't read to me like not wanting them to voice their opinion. But yes, a moderator should be concerned when groups with very different needs and motivations interact. Not because it's undesirable but because it can easily devolve into nonproductive and even harmful "discussion". It's the same concern a shop manager has when someone is new to using the table saw or torch or whatever. Except, table saws don't have a mind of their own.

droithomme 7y ago

No. That is false and disingenuous. They explicitly stated concern that homeless etc people would be able to "join the conversation." It's not an interpretation. It's what they actually stated clearly and explicitly, as a matter of fact on record. This is their exact quote about categories of contributors they had concern with: > for example, homeless people and very sick people and disabled people can join the conversation

tidenly 7y ago
Sorry, I might be missing something but can you point out where the author is saying they're against this or that its a "concern"? They say it can be disruptive - and explicitly say to whom it is disruptive ("people who don't run into the kinds of people normally" i.e the masses) but I'm not seeing this explicit point where the author says it's a bad thing - only that it's a challenge to moderate everyone tactfully. Can you help me out?
andreareina 7y ago
There are whole paragraphs devoted to how to let these people give their relevant first-hand experience without derailing the conversation or getting ganged up on. That doesn't read to me like not wanting them to voice their opinion. But yes, a moderator should be concerned when groups with very different needs and motivations interact. Not because it's undesirable but because it can easily devolve into nonproductive and even harmful "discussion". It's the same concern a shop manager has when someone is new to using the table saw or torch or whatever. Except, table saws don't have a mind of their own.