At times what I deem as worthy is a distilled version. At other times what I deem as worthy is a messier version. Distilled can help me read it quickly and give me certainty over someone's perspective. Messier can take longer to read and yet show me an often more accurate window into someone's mind, helping me feel more connected to the person.

Again, if you're saying that you strongly believe HN is not the place for such windows into the inner workings of someone's mind and you believe HN should be the packaged output, I might agree. Most people who contribute here seem to obey that rule. Maybe if everyone posted stream of consciousness, this place would become untenable. However, if it goes from 1% to 3%, I think it'd still be manageable and then I could feel delighted at the interspersed nature of it.

In other words, almost the opposite of the free rider problem you may have alluded to regarding public goods, or the similarity to it if you think those who provide distilled versions are doing more work for the common good and the others are doing less. In this scenario, I suppose it depends on what one defines as good in the common good.