Ask HN: Do you vouch for the accuracy of links you submit?

[tokenadult]

When you submit a link to HN, is that an implicit statement that you agree with the content at the linked source, or are you inviting discussion of a source that you possibly disagree with? I have found some recent comment threads in which commenters presume that the submitter agrees with the linked content, but it seems to me under the HN guidelines,

"On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity."

it would be possible for someone to submit a link to invite discussion, without implying that the linked source is the last word (or even an adequate first word) on the subject.

What do you think? Does every link you submit come with your endorsement of truthfulness and accuracy?

[mechanical_fish]

HN guidelines strongly discourage editorializing in the titles of submissions, and these titles can be edited after the fact by site editors.

Without the power to editorialize in the title, I don't think there's a good way to distinguish between submitting something that you agree with and submitting something that you would like to discuss, even though you disagree with it.

This is actually one reason why the anti-editorializing guideline makes sense. We really don't want HN to clog up with links to bad arguments that need refuting. There are far more bad articles than good ones, and the readers just don't have the time to sort them out for themselves. That's what HN is supposed to be doing for us! So we encourage people to submit only quality links, or suffer the consequences to their own reputation.

I think it's important to remember that HN isn't designed to replace blogs. If you want to start a critical discussion about some piece of content, write a blog post that criticizes it, then submit that blog post. That's what I would do.

[tokenadult → mechanical_fish]

There are far more bad articles than good ones, and the readers just don't have the time to sort them out for themselves. That's what HN is supposed to be doing for us!

That's an interesting perspective. That does suggest that the most suitable way to get an interesting fact into discussion is to find the best available Web link on that fact, to seed the discussion with a well-framed source.

[unalone]

Yes. I rarely submit; when I do, I only submit things that might actually provoke interesting conversation.

[niyazpk → unalone]

Yes. The point is to start a meaningful discussion, not to spread ideas that I support.

[swombat]

Most of the time, I submit things that I believe are worth reading. Occasionally, however, I do submit things that I believe are worth discussing, rather than reading (i.e. I don't agree with the point being made, but I want to read the discussion of that point).

Usually, in the latter case, I get involved in the discussion too.

[Tangurena → swombat]

Same for me: submitting things that I think other folks would find interesting. But I also tend to include a post that adds why I think the link is important, or should be read.

[pclark]

Obviously. What I submit reflects upon me, and as a founder of a startup I don't want to be known for submitting junk on one of the largest startup communities.

[johns → pclark]

What if that junk starts a worthwhile discussion? I have occasionally been known to post a junk link, but only because I see it as a starting point for a conversation that is far more valuable.

[raganwald]

Does every link you submit come with your endorsement of truthfulness and accuracy?

Absolutely not! Every link I submit comes with my endorsement that I have actually read it and found it interesting. I have very low standards for "interesting:" If there is one valuable thing in a post or article, that is enough for me.

http://weblog.raganwald.com/2007/10/how-to-use-blunt-instrum...

[justlearning]

I don't submit(not yet!). I take fancy to the comments here. I read the comments in depth and skim over any articles submitted.

I think, even a 'dumb' article gets decent conversations thread.

Accurate or not, it's the crowd that discusses that makes a molehill of a mountain or otherwise.

PS: I used to think, I should comment on something I think I can talk about. But now, I think on reflecting my opinion on my understanding. I don't care about karma (points) as long as I express clearly what I 'thought' reading thru..

[rksprst]

To an extent. I think that the seriousness with which people take submissions are a result of "peer pressure"/"crowdthink" and that some might even be afraid to submit an article if they aren't sure its "on-topic" because of karma/comments of other users. I have no proof, but I think that this happens too much and interesting articles are not summited out of fear of not conforming to the views of this community as a whole.

[tokenadult]

For the record, I have submitted articles whenever I thought they raised a factual issue

a) that would be of interest to hackers,

b) that hasn't been discussed from that point of view recently (I tend to search for previous submissions to HN before posting),

and

c) that is subject to illumination by further discussion from people of differing points of view.

I definitely do NOT only post links that agree with my personal point of view on issues. But based on how mechanical_fish and others replied below, I think I'll impose a higher quality screen on future submissions from my keyboard, agreeing with several replies here that there are A LOT of links out there that are junk.

[vaksel]

I submit stuff that I think will be interesting to others.

But I don't endorse it as being accurate or truthful since most times I just skim the stuff.

And yes a lot of my stuff have "bait" titles, because I use the quick-submit that just uses the original post's title. You know:

javascript:window.location=%22http://news.ycombinator.com/submitlink?u=%22+encodeURICompon...