2 ms·
I get down voted for not agreeing with the article? Or did you think the definition of tragedy of the commons was accurate? From the discussion it seems like t
by dfc 15y ago
I get down voted for not agreeing with the article? Or did you think the definition of tragedy of the commons was accurate?
From the discussion it seems like the article may be interesting but based off of the definition of tragedy of the commons it seems like madness lies ahead. If the tragedy of the commons definition is indicative of what is to come reading the rest does not seem like a good choice for leisure reading.
I genuinely am interested in knowing if the definition of tragedy of the commons is indicative of the rest of the work? (Sorry the edit button is gone from my original post)
- Drbble 15y agoYou are right, the article's definition of tragedy of the commons was poorly and bizarrely written, but you were downvoted because your criticism wasn't clearly expressed. You complained about the article but didn't specifically cite or correct its error.
- dfc 15y agoIs the rest of the article written in the same manner?
- janardanyri 15y agoYou were downvoted for relatively shallow and reflexive criticism. You're not disagreeing with the article; you didn't read the article. If you genuinely want to know if it's a good article, read it. You're not saving anyone any time by instead initiating a conversation about how you didn't like a sentence in the second paragraph. There was a great article recently on being a good reader. I can't seem to find it again, but the general point was that you have to assume some level of good faith and try to see through inevitably fuzzy wording to assess the fundamental points that constitute real value and insight. In reading, you win if you learn something, not if you defeat an argument. (Or maybe there's a broader problem if an article making the front page of HN doesn't count as sufficient endorsement in itself...?)