Everything else equal, I agree. In this case I think that also ends up rewarding manufacture of drama and controversy though, and punishing a more truthful and neutral reporting of the same event through the merging and removing of the secondary source.
I'm not going to try to convince you to revert it, but I note that the discussion under the NYT post contains a fair bit of vitriolic and confused commentary, which is less surprising when the target post itself works to conjure up e.g. emotionally charged parallels to the Manhattan project.
You'll be a better judge than I whether this thread would have devolved in a similar way, but personally I feel that the original article in this case also has significant poor qualities to be the chosen reporting on the event.
Comments
Everything else equal, I agree. In this case I think that also ends up rewarding manufacture of drama and controversy though, and punishing a more truthful and neutral reporting of the same event through the merging and removing of the secondary source.
I'm not going to try to convince you to revert it, but I note that the discussion under the NYT post contains a fair bit of vitriolic and confused commentary, which is less surprising when the target post itself works to conjure up e.g. emotionally charged parallels to the Manhattan project.
You'll be a better judge than I whether this thread would have devolved in a similar way, but personally I feel that the original article in this case also has significant poor qualities to be the chosen reporting on the event.