Talk:Hacker News

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Websites / Computing   
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
 

Downvote[edit]

The article says that there's no downvote option, which is no longer the case. Once users obtain a certain amount of karma (an unpublished number that tends to get increased over time), they acquire the ability to downvote (http://ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html). Dsrguru (talk) 08:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The intro section reflects this now, although not in your stated level of detail. Wingman4l7 (talk) 04:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

I posit that Techcrunch is a reliable source, both as a mainstream news organization and as an established expert on the field at hand. The New Atlantis is also a source of academic scholarship. Kevin143 (talk) 03:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree on Techcrunch depending on the context. If they have a general review of HN then it should go in the bottom references. Anythign specificaly referenced in the article obv goes there. But random reports about HN are not particularly relevant (there is such a thing as over sourcing) :) Regarding the New Atlantis: the link I removed was to the HN category which held 2 articles of rough relevance - that is not how sourcing works... but one of the articles was relevant to PG's comments about Eternal September so I bumped that to there as a reference and removed the general link. I think that works better. (errantx@HN) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 09:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Website address[edit]

Does this website have an address too? Maybe it wouldn't hurt to note it - I'm no going to Google typing 'hacker news' to get to that site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.217.141.156 (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

http://www.google.de/search?hl=en&q=hacker+news&btnG=Google-Suche&meta=&aq=f&oq= first result - really hard, wasn't it --217.229.110.57 (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Empty section[edit]

The section "External links" is empty. --Mortense (talk) 21:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Not anymore! Wingman4l7 (talk) 04:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Moderation controversy[edit]

The section "Moderation controversy" appears to be entirely self-published sources, and generally not adhering to WP:SOURCES - blog posts, and links to HN discussions (which fall under forums). The entire section also seems to be against WP:SOAPBOX. According to my understanding of Wikipedia guidelines, it does not belong on Wikipedia. Does anyone have any good arguments against removing it? --Vladimir (talk) 10:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Since I didn't get any objections, I removed the said section. --Vladimir (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines regarding sources state that they are not strictly necessary when information is either plausible or uncontroversial. The moderation policy at Hacker News is well known, well cited and has a huge impact upon those individuals who are not aware of the policy. In addition, you can verify the instances by turning on the option 'Show Dead' in the Hacker News profile control panel to see how many users have been passively-aggressively banned with no notification.

Removing the moderation controversy additions favours Hacker News as a platform and can easily be misconstrued as partisan support or censoring evidence of wider criticism of the platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.249.50.22 (talkcontribs) 17:57, July 20, 2014 UTC

Wikipedia guidelines regarding sources state that they are not strictly necessary when information is either plausible or uncontroversial. - Whether the bans are deserved or not is absolutely controversial, and the quality of sources is of high importance. There is no NPOV research on this topic. First-hand accounts do not make good sources.
The moderation policy at Hacker News is well known, well cited and has a huge impact upon those individuals who are not aware of the policy. In addition, you can verify the instances by turning on the option 'Show Dead' in the Hacker News profile control panel to see how many users have been passively-aggressively banned with no notification. - I should note that your tone betrays a conflict of interest. To add a contrasting point of personal experience, I browse HN with show-dead on, and it's a rare occurrence when I see a [dead] poster who does not have something obvious in their posting history to deserve the ban - so I disagree that the statements in the paragraph are easily verifiable.
Taking your arguments into account, I still do not believe that the section, as it currently stands, belongs in Wikipedia. The content and tone is inflammatory, and it strays far from the neutral tone and encyclopedic content that Wikipedia seeks. IMO it creates the impression that it is written by someone with a bone to pick with HN's moderation policy. Also see: Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies.
Vladimir (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


To add a contrasting point of personal experience, I browse HN with show-dead on, and it's a rare occurrence when I see a [dead] poster who does not have something obvious in their posting history to deserve the ban. It is not your place to decide whether bans were or were not justified. Your own bias is beginning to surface. Furthermore; I have not discussed the reasoning for a ban or criticised Hacker News in that regard. They may be entirely justified. Primary sources are entirely justified in this regard. A Hacker News discussion which discusses and confirms the nature of Hellbanning is a perfectly reasonable source however if you require an external source then you can read this Techcrunch article[1]. Do you have evidence to suggest Hellbanning is myth or not in use?

The edits to article centre on the nature of the ban which is of high importance to potential users considering using Hacker News or those seeking further information. All forums have a moderation policy, that is not in question; the controversy at Hacker News is surrounding the nature of Hellbanning - a secret ban which can result in literally years of wasted time for a user who is unaware they are banned.

It falls squarely within the remit of Wikipedia. I suggest we put the edit to external moderation since several Wikipedia editors have attempted to highlight the factual practice and you insist on reverting their changes indicating a strong partisan or biased position. The content is not inflammatory, speculation or factually incorrect. It is a truthful statement which has caused a number of users high inconvenience and emotional harm over the years. Notably; the user Losethos (who suffered from mental illness) was famously allowed to post to Hacker News for years whilst Hellbanned under the impression the community were seeing his contributions.[2]

It is no more inflammatory to highlight the unusual and inconsistent moderation policy at Hacker News than it is to highlight the politically partisan nature of a news channel or the inconsistencies at other organisations. The edits are factual and should stand unless a compelling argument can be made otherwise. Hellbanning itself is also the subject of a Wikipedia article.[3] Can you articulate why we can discuss Hellbanning in general, attribute the practice to certain blogs (Coding Horror) and individuals (Jeff Atwood) but exclude Hacker News? --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.242.37 (talkcontribs) 07:37, July 21, 2014‎

First, please sign your comments when editing talk pages. You can do this by adding --~~~~ at the end of your messages. Please also consider creating an account.
It is not your place to decide whether bans were or were not justified. Your own bias is beginning to surface. - You have misinterpreted me. I have only provided a personal datum, not made some statement regarding whether the bans were justified or not. I do not intend to base anything in the article based on personal experience, that would be unencyclopedic.
Do you have evidence to suggest Hellbanning is myth or not in use? - No. You are misunderstanding or distorting my intentions. I am not saying that the claims are false - only that I don't think they belong on Wikipedia. I think that the text: 1) uses a tone that is far from neutral (e.g. I think "notorious passive-aggressive" have no place in a Wikipedia article outside of a direct quote); 2) makes use of primary sources to describe users' experiences; and 3) is too low in encyclopedic value to be even mentioned. The TechCrunch article is the only source I can consider valid, but even that article, which is much longer than this page, only devotes a sentence to the moderation policy. There is no reliable source or evidence that "rankbanning" exists, I don't see how "slowbanning" is a "ban" at all (might as well call it what it is - a throttle), or how is "hellbanning" different from "shadowbanning", making the whole list sound like a non-sense list of scary words.
Can you articulate why we can discuss Hellbanning in general, attribute the practice to certain blogs (Coding Horror) and individuals (Jeff Atwood) but exclude Hacker News? - For the same reason that the practice is not mentioned on Coding Horror, Something Awful, Reddit, Fark or other articles on websites that employ hellbanning.
--Vladimir (talk) 08:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

That is not an articulation. Hellbanning is clearly not a nonsense list of scary words since Wikipedia currently has an article titled 'Hellbanning'. Slowbanning is considered a ban despite it being more technologically described as throttling. The community and the moderators refer to the practice as slowbanning which is how it should be addressed (possibly with a description). To summarise thus far;

1. You have denied basing your edits on personal experience despite typing the following sentence "it's a rare occurrence when I see a [dead] poster who does not have something obvious in their posting history to deserve the ban."

2. Since other articles (Wikipedia Reddit etc) do not explicitly refer to Hellbanning as a practice we should discount the factual information from the Hacker News article.

3. You think that listing a moderation controversy is not encyclopedic despite the impact it can have upon the users. Interestingly the Reddit article you have used to support your position has an entire section dedicated to Reddit Controversies including bans and censorship.

4. You believe primary sources should be discounted despite the Wikipedia guidance that primary sources are sufficient when information is plausible (otherwise every word of every line would require a citation).

5. You wish to discount the TechCrunch article since they only devoted a single line to the topic.

6. I concede that the word notorious has negative connotations and should be removed. However; the remainder of the edits should stand. The various types of bans are extremely important to the users and anyone researching the site; in addition they are not communicated to the users of the site and remain vague, opaque and arbitrary in their application. It is absolutely worthy of inclusion on a Wikipedia article.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.242.37 (talkcontribs) 10:58, July 21, 2014‎ UTC

First, when you sign your comments, please do not include the <nowiki> tags. The four-tildes sequence will expand into your signature when you save the page - I needed to use <nowiki> tags to prevent the sequence from expanding into my signature.
Hellbanning is clearly not a nonsense list of scary words - I was referring to this part: The site has a notorious passive-aggressive moderation policy incorporating Hellbanning, Slowbanning and Rankbanning.. And I'm going to have to ask for a source regarding Slowbanning is considered a ban.
You have denied basing your edits on personal experience despite typing the following sentence "it's a rare occurrence when I see a [dead] poster who does not have something obvious in their posting history to deserve the ban." - Correct. Just because I have presented an argument does not mean I intend to act upon it while working on Wikipedia. As per above, I agree with you that personal experience should not be a part of any decision process involving an article's content. I stated it because my experience disagreed with something you said on this talk page.
Since other articles (Wikipedia Reddit etc) do not explicitly refer to Hellbanning as a practice we should discount the factual information from the Hacker News article. - This is not direct cause-and-effect reasoning, but I am pointing out that most likely, much of the same reasons would apply when deciding whether to mention moderation practices regardress of the website/article.
You think that listing a moderation controversy is not encyclopedic despite the impact it can have upon the users. - I think "the impact it can have upon the users" is impossible to measure objectively and I don't think it should be a factor of whether something is worth including. If e.g. 0.01% of a website's visitors were banned, it is ultimately of little importance and not worth mentioning. Aside from primary sources (first-hand accounts), there are no other sources to back up whether this is really an issue worth mentioning.
Interestingly the Reddit article you have used to support your position has an entire section dedicated to Reddit Controversies including bans and censorship. - Indeed, and it 1) is well-sourced, 2) uses a neutral tone, and 3) does not mention hell-banning (or banning individual users at all as far as I can tell).
You believe primary sources should be discounted despite the Wikipedia guidance that primary sources are sufficient when information is plausible (otherwise every word of every line would require a citation). - I disagree that this applies here. The topic is controversial and its importance is difficult to quantify. Primary sources might simply lie. The whole thing and its importance is difficult to verify.
You wish to discount the TechCrunch article since they only devoted a single line to the topic. - No, that was not my intention. I only pointed out how much attention did the TechCrunch article devote to this topic: one sentence in the TechCrunch article vs. a third of your proposed Wikipedia article.
It is absolutely worthy of inclusion on a Wikipedia article. - OK, let's try to find common ground: I think it'd be much more acceptable to include one sentence at the end of the summary, such as: Hacker News employs hellbanning when dealing with misbehaving users.[1] - and source the TechCrunch article. I still personally think it is not worthy of being mentioned, however I'd feel much less strongly about this.
--Vladimir (talk) 19:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

08 August 2014 Edit to Add

Wikipedia explicitly states that upon a third reversion the parties are too cease reverting edits. You disregarded that guideline by reverting the article for a fourth time. Please cease doing so until we can come to a consensus on which aspects of the Hacker News moderation controversy we agree upon. At present you are the sole user reverting contributions centering on the moderation controversy indicating you are both in the minority and also not impartially monitoring the article.

157.203.242.36 (talk) 09:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

No. I reverted it because the discussion died. The three-revert rule applies to 24-hour periods - I had waited several days since the last talk page activity before reverting. (And even if I did break a rule, do you think your revert of my revert is not subject to the same rule? Are you above the same rules you accuse me of breaking?)
If you have further arguments regarding the article's content, present them below - I am listing this debate on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.
Also I reject your conclusions about my impartiality. This page is in my watch list because I've edited it, nothing more. --Vladimir (talk) 10:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit to Add

I reverted it to return the article to it's three-edit revert status. So, in answer to your question, the answer is no, I did not consider myself breaking a rule. I was reverting your violation of the rule.

2.219.55.12 (talk) 12:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

References

RfC regarding moderation controversy[edit]

This RfC was closed because consensus was reached after significant improvements to the article. Vladimir (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should this article mention Hacker News' moderation policy? If so, to what extent? Vladimir (talk) 10:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

You're asking two different questions:
  1. Should this article discuss the moderation policy? (RfC text)
  2. Should this article present the moderation policy as a controversy? (This section's title)
IMO, this article should discuss the moderation policy if it is noted by reliable secondary sources. All websites have some sort of moderation policy, yet not all websites' moderation policies are appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. If the moderation policy is to be included, it should be presented as a controversy only if it is so described by the reliable sources cited, or if those reliable sources substantially disagree as to the cause, nature, or effect of the moderation policies. betafive 20:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment - here for RfC: Currently, the introduction mentions hellbanning and two other ban types, without defining what they are (and it also improperly capitalizes them). The three types of ban should be linked (redlinking would be okay) and briefly explained when they are first mentioned. This, and other content on the moderation practices, should be consolidated in the article and not spread out in two locations. It's also not necessary to use so many references; one of the reference quotes is a whole paragraph by itself.
So, I think the article should discuss the way the site is moderated and briefly mention the controversy with references to content that would allow the reader to form their own opinion. Someone's opinion is a primary source. A review of several opinions is a secondary source. Ideally there would be one or two recent articles with interviews/messages from HN admins and users. Roches (talk) 01:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removing Moderation Controversy section pending RfC (above)[edit]

DFTT
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Since the RfC is closed, this section is no longer relevant. Any new discussion is better served in a new discussion. The only point of controversy is with Betafive's conclusion and whether it is representative of the full discussion: an anonymous user disputes it. This administrator expresses no opinion about the accuracy of the conclusion, but is steering everybody on to other, constructive discussions about the article. —C.Fred (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

As currently written, this section fails WP:NPOV. What's more, the citations given (including a Tumblr and personal blog) are not reliable sources, and the synthetic conclusion implied flirts with violating WP:NOR. I am therefore going to remove it. betafive 20:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit to Add

Can you elaborate on how this fails WP:NPOV? Which parts specifically? Under your current interpretation of the rules the only possible way for users to flag the moderation controversy at Hacker News will be attribute a direct statement to Paul Graham or the moderation staff which they absolutely won't issue. We are in a situation of the Emperor is wearing no clothes. All members of Hacker News know about Hellbanning, it is widely discussed within Hacker News itself and on peer-like and co-located forums (Quora) but Wikipedia are banning any mention of it. This is absurd. I am reverting the change as per the other Wikipedia users who have attempted to highlight this issue as a de facto part of the Hacker News identity and worthy of encyclopaedic inclusion.

If you have genuine criticisms then articulate them other than blithely listing Wikipedia policies. First hand primary sources are absolutely valued for encyclopaedic knowledge. The source is not diluted by it's nature of being a blog, Tumbler account or other such platform. Would you prefer the author to write it on parchment with a quill, submit as his journal to b discovered 100 years hence and thus, magically, considered a valid primary source? Are you deleting all primary sources from Wikipedia?

2.219.55.12 (talk) 12:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Violating Wikipedia policies is a genuine criticism. If you'd like to argue the merits of WP:RS, please pick a more appropriate venue. The section was billed as a 'controversy' but was actually a slam. If there is such a controversy, certainly it's been covered by reliable secondary sources? betafive 12:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The fact you have interpreted it a slam does not make it so. A number of reliable sources (including noted and respected entrepreneurs and software engineers) have discussed the practice of Hellbanning but you seem intent on removing the source links and replace with the "Who Cited" tag (more absurdity).

Please answer my question - which aspects of the moderation policy section explicitly violate WP:NPOV as you have asserted? If you cannot answer then the edits will remain and an edit war will be the result since you are refusing to engage in dialogue. I also posed a number of other questions. I would like them answered.

I see no difference between the Hacker News Moderation Controversy section and a similar section included at the Reddit Wikipedia Page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reddit#Controversies_involving_Reddit

2.219.55.12 (talk) 12:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

If you would like to engage in dialogue, do so in good faith. If you'd like to edit war, you'll be blocked. I will not discuss this with you under threat that you'll disruptively edit wikipedia if I do not "answer your questions." Wikipedia's policies are available for your perusal, please educate yourself about them. betafive 12:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

If you refuse to answer questions then there is no point attempting to engage in dialogue with you. Block away. It will take you longer to block me than for me to click on a proxy favourite. Or you can just answer my questions instead of causing the debate to escalate into where it is now. I have reviewed Good Faith and it said the following "Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism. Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice". So, I expect my questions answered in good faith or you cease to reverting edits. One or the other.

2.219.55.12 (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Here are the answers to your questions. Why are you here? betafive 22:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I followed a notice here from AN/I, and removed the entire section. I did not see a single reliable source there, only citations to the forum itself, and to people who wrote on their personal blogs about being disappointed about their treatment on the forum. Mining a discussion page in order to comment about the status of discussion there is WP:OR. That's a fundamental flaw so I don't think we need to go into all the other problems in depth, but it also seems to have a weight and POV problem. It's a very influential forum within a narrow field, and filling up half an article with the inevitable gripes about moderation policy (all forums have gripes about moderation policies) is a bit much. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

All forums do not hide banning from from the user being banned which has led to some individuals investing considerable man-hours into the forum whilst being secretly rendered invisible to the rest of the forum participants. If you think that is not worthy of encyclopaedia entry then you are either partisan or ignorant. Can you elaborate on why a primary source from a respected member of the IT community is not considered reliable? Are you going to delete the letters of Benjamin Franklin next?

Unless someone can articulate in clear and compelling language why primary sources are not relevant to the moderation section of the Hacker News article then the editing will continue. I suggest you bring in more editors to find a consensus.

You are also incorrect to state that meta-discussions regarding the forum on the forum are the equivalent of using an infinite loop citation of wiki article, citing itself. That is an incorrect analogy.

A closer analogy would be two art students discussing the Mona Lisa within the Louvre with their conversation captured. The forum itself is not the source, the contribution from the posters who are aware of hellbanning and slowbanning is the source.

Since Hacker News refuses to publish it's moderation policy then no other direct source can be attributable other than those parties that have spoken up to detail their experiences. In addition, any member of Wikipedia can prove the existence of slowbanning through direct observation.


This is the equivalent of deleting articles that suspect the Government of eavesdropping because the Government will not issue a statement confirming they are eavesdropping.

94.15.82.228 (talk) 12:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

94.15.82.228 (talk) 12:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

First, stop edit warring. The material stays out unless there is consensus among legitimate editors who don't make threats to sockpuppet agree to include it, and I don't think they can or will agree to violate a fundamental content principle like WP:V. It doesn't matter how famous or well respected someone is, their informal gripes about a discussion forum are not reliable because they are not subject to editorial review, nor are they made in a context that demonstrates careful attention to detail, accuracy, that establishes due weight and relevance, etc. If da Vinci himself visits the Louvre and whispers "I just hate that frame they're using" we would have sourcing problems unless some reliable sources saw fit to report on it. Your latest sour grapes edit war to delete everything that's referenced by a primary source is pretty much vandalism of the article at this point. There are certainly some uncontroversial things that are reasonable to cite to a primary source, that could be sourced elsewhere, or that don't need a source. As I mentioned above, people griping on a forum about a forum's moderation is just not an encyclopedic matter because that happens on every single forum in existence. It doesn't add anything to covering the forum, it just becomes a navel-gazing exercise by people who have a bone to pick. If there were any significance to it, independent off-forum reliable sources would describe it. Come back with a real source and we can discuss whether it's relevant and of due weight to include. If not, we don't even have to go there, the information is inadequately sourced controversial information that is too weak to include. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

You stop your edit war. The moderation controversy paragraph was part of this article before you or I got here. So take your own advice and stop disruptively editing it. And provide legitimate reasons while you are at it instead of ranting. Your logic is fallacious and you know it.

94.15.82.228 (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

We are done here. Reverting vandalism is not considered edit warring. You are not welcome to edit this article to score points with your opinion on Hacker News. Maybe you should go back to Hacker News to complain about moderation here, which will be coming shortly. Wikidemon (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Listen to yourself. Seriously. You are not in charge here and you are no more welcome than I am. Either engage in debate like an adult or begone and find another place to rant. But leave under no illusion, your opinion is worth nothing right now. We are done, not because you say so but because your argument has exhausted itself and you are merely ranting. Answer my questions or leave.
That's a sorry excuse for a flagrant abuse of the rules here. Some day you may learn that you don't just go to a new forum and start breaking rules and accusing people of things while screaming censorship and bias. That doesn't work here, and it doesn't work on Hacker News. The people who actually have some investment in the forum are not going to tolerate that for long. If that's your online approach you'll find yourself unwelcome most anywhere - Wikidemon (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
You truly represent the worst aspects of your online community. In ever claimed censorship. I know for a fact you do not have the faculties to debate this article at the level it requires. As evidenced by your ridiculous statements ("I have gutted it etc etc"). Just stop now. It's over. 94.15.82.228 (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
It's hard to tell exactly what you're trying to say in English, but whatever it is, a low level nuisance like you is hardly worth getting into a flame war. There are other sites for that, you know. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:01,
You can have the last word. It makes you seem more mature. 94.15.82.228 (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! betafive 20:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
You are welcome. 94.15.82.228 (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


Conversation conclusion[edit]

The "Moderation Controversy" section has been removed, and much of the material from therein has been reincorporated into the rest of the article with improved references. Rather than perpetuating this argument, please consider commenting on the RfC section above. Thanks!

Main arguments:

  • It doesn't matter how famous or well respected someone is, their informal gripes about a discussion forum are not reliable because they are not subject to editorial review, nor are they made in a context that demonstrates careful attention to detail, accuracy, that establishes due weight and relevance, etc.
  • There are certainly some uncontroversial things that are reasonable to cite to a primary source, that could be sourced elsewhere, or that don't need a source [but] people griping on a forum about a forum's moderation is just not an encyclopedic matter because that happens on every single forum in existence.
betafive 20:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
This conclusion is currently contention and does not reflect the consensus. The primary rebuttal being that the punitive and hidden nature of the Hacker News moderation policy can lead to considerable wasted man hours in contributions despite it never being 'live' on the site. Users have posted to the forum for many months without being aware they are Hellbanned. It has been recognised by other editors that the moderation policy of an online forum, if unpublished, is notoriously hard to gain a citation for. In addition; I maintain that primary sources are considered legitimate when the source is considered a thought leader or of high standing in a cultural, scientific, sporting or similar field. Individuals criticizing the Hacker News moderation policy are well respected software engineers and technology contributors.

2.122.134.51 (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

August Edit War[edit]

I think the contributions made this evening have alleviated all my editing issues. Thank you to J for prevailing as a cooler head.

I didn't write the original moderation controversy, I merely restored it but the current section on practices seems a good compromise. No complaints here. Thanks for pitching in Beta.

94.15.82.228 (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.