Hacker News Reader

Comment by erikpukinskis | Hacker News Reader

I’m obviously not in line with the tenor of this thread, but I really don’t think it’s a big deal. People make edits. Other people revert them. The outrage here seems silly. “Defacing” is hyperbole.

I remember when Hacker News was politically against the idea that Terms of Service were in any way binding.

View on HN

> I’m obviously not in line with the tenor of this thread, but I really don’t think it’s a big deal.

If this sort of abuse isn't nipped in the bud, it will only get worse and become standard operating procedure for each and every single ad company, big and small.

People could complain about low quality edits without clutching their pearls over the idea that a marketing team would deign to edit anything.

If a marketing team wants to edit anything then let them put up their own blog or website instead of abusing other people's service.

It's this sort of abuse that brought spam into the world and pretty much destroyed fundamental services such as email and also usenet.

It’s just hard to take your concern seriously because I doubt you have spoken out against the top spammers on Wikipedia, but you care about this one silly project. But please correct me if I’m wrong and this is an issue you are invested in.

You have no idea who I am so refrain from making up accusations and personal attacks founded on your personal baseless assertions. If you have nothing of value to add to the discussion, simply don't add noise or drama to the discussion.

What personal attack? I expressed doubt and a willingness to be corrected. If you can name another “vandal” party who you’ve spoken out against, or even another party you are aware of then I will stand corrected.

Alone, it's not a huge deal. However if not controlled, such behavior would erode and eventually ruin the trust in the community, and as such should be nipped at the bud, before it becomes the real issue. If non-huge-deal instances would receive solid pushback then there would be less likely to be huge ones. And let's also not exaggerate the other way - other than temporary public shaming, there's no huge consequences for the perpetrator too, so the punishment meets the crime here.

I'm going to spraypaint my corporate logo on the local community center. The volunteers that work there will remove it. The outrage here seems silly!

Spray painting is another thing people get very upset about which I don’t think is a big deal.

Have you ever owned a house? Would you be ok with everybody drawing on it whatever they'd like, including things you personally hate?

Probably yes, if I lived in a dense city it would fine. I can’t imagine what someone would paint that would be so bad. If I really disliked it I could paint over it.

Who is the homeowner in the Wikipedia analogy though?

> I can’t imagine what someone would paint that would be so bad.

You are either exceptionally tolerant, or have rather restricted imagination.

> Who is the homeowner in the Wikipedia analogy though?

The community of Wikipedia editors.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com