3 ms·

Thanks for the feedback! "Lazy work" does not mean "lazy person." And "joke" would be better stated as "this article reads suspiciously as astroturfing." But

Thanks for the feedback! "Lazy work" does not mean "lazy person." And "joke" would be better stated as "this article reads suspiciously as astroturfing." But I see how the blunt call-out of lazy work and tip-toeing around the astroturfing vibes—i.e. the way I worded my comment—could read as a personal attack, and I agree that's not a productive way to approach discourse. I missed the edit window, but I would amend the first line: s/author/article and s/a joke/intentionally misleading.

brudgers 7y ago
The proposed edits don’t assume good faith and don’t contribute to understanding the topic. Instead here we are in the weeds.
- zackbrown 7y ago
  The article is misleading. That's either unintentional or intentional. Per Hanlon's razor, my first hypothesis is the former but we shouldn't rule out the latter. Proactively question good faith but don't proactively doubt it. Calling out the article as misleading mitigates the damage it causes and thus exactly "contributes to understanding the topic."