3 ms·
> Social media is not one thing. Fair enough, but science journalism is not just one thing. > You've got multiple people in this thread who know the subject,
by wolverine876 3y ago
> Social media is not one thing.
Fair enough, but science journalism is not just one thing.
> You've got multiple people in this thread who know the subject, in detail, telling you that the headline is wrong.
That appears on every HN discussion of anything. It's not a signal of wrongness or rightness, any more than the color of the banner at the top - if it's orange, the OP must be obviously wrong!
- hedora 3y agoIt turns out there’s usually a group of HN commenters that specialize in whatever the topic is and are more qualified to discuss the technical contributions than the person that paraphrased a university press release.
- wolverine876 3y agoHmmm ... that is not my experience of it. My experience is that the actual experts' comments are half-way down the page, and in fields I do know about, most of the comments range from amateurish to BS. The omnipresent take-down comments are disputed by the experts, usually. Many of them follow the same formulaic 'take-down' patterns that reflect amateurism and ignorance trying to look smart, such as railing against sample sizes, etc. Also, your comment is a baseless claim - like the strawperson journalists you rail against - that HN commenters are more informed than the authors. I expect that very few HN commenters are as informed.