Item — HN Reader

I reject the premise. The internet seems to have proven that medium shapes dialogue.

Wikipedia = encyclopedia quality product using only input from internet people

Reddit = Consistently entertaining jokes on news using only input from internet people

HN = A readable online discussion with points worth considering using only input from internet people

2 comments

That's an pretry glass-half-full perspective. I would counter with this:

Wikipedia = stable, but mostly because a cabal of senior editors is firmly in charge. For all practical purposes, "anyone" can't edit Wikipedia anymore; try it, your edits will be reverted by somebody citing WP:WTFBBQ. It keeps trolling down, but at the cost of enforcing the party line.

Reddit = when it isn't trolls and miscreants, it's the same unfunny jokes upvoted ad nauseum

HN = good, but mostly because we're a self-selecting subset of the general population and there are legitimate grounds for banning any "off-topic" speech. This approach doesn't scale to the wider world.

I would add Stack Exchange (and particularly SO), full of invaluable information but you need to kneel before asking a question.

I do not know how the Meta groups are today, this was one of the most toxic groups I have ever seen.