4 ms·
Keep in mind that HN comments are actually a fairly decent set of secondary sources: the discussion of expert-level commentators is exactly what Wikipedia wants
by saraid216 13y ago
Keep in mind that HN comments are actually a fairly decent set of secondary sources: the discussion of expert-level commentators is exactly what Wikipedia wants to link to, rather than basing things off the first-hand claims.
- greenyoda 13y agoExcept that the quality of HN comments varies widely: not all commenters on HN are experts in the subjects they're writing about (and the people voting up a comment aren't necessarily experts either). A general reader following a link here from Wikipedia is not likely to be able to tell the difference between an expert and a non-expert. Thus, HN would make a much worse secondary source than something like an industry publication that has an editor and fact checkers (rare as these seem to be in our field today).
- saraid216 13y agoAnd in that case, a reader who does know the difference would hopefully edit the page to remove any secondary sources that aren't of good quality, such as links to HN comments that are flat-out incorrect.
- ErrantX 13y agoAnd who identifies them as incorrect? Not the editor.. Wikipedia looks for expert opinion published in reliable outlets to avoid the problem of people enforcing their own point of view. At least in theory. HN comments are usually interesting, but lack any form of editorial control :)
- saraid216 13y ago> Not the editor.. You say this as if there's ever anyone else.
- tomasien 13y agoI, for example, comment regularly on HN and I know next to nothing.
- tomrod 13y agoI can report the same.
- BHSPitMonkey 13y agoI've seen no shortage of uncontested bad and outright incorrect advice given on this site. We mustn't be so quick to trust the discussion here as perfect, especially given the growth over the past months.