> It's fine for people who aren't officially credentialled experts in something to talk about it.
Sometimes this is true, but sometimes undertrained perspectives can be quite detrimental. The most clear-cut example is that of medical discussions; medical commentary or speculation from under-qualified individuals can do real harm. Many communities on the web have recognized this and have taken measures to protect users[1].
Medical advice is a pretty extreme example as far as detrimental discussions, but there are some shades of gray that I've seen show up on HN. As a biologist, the ones I've found most grating are those that reflect poor training in the the life sciences, where HNers make pseudoscientific or unscientific claims. It's easy to call these things "opinions", but they are actively harmful when most users will not be able to tell that they are incorrect.
There are certainly other cases where underinformed commenters end up doing harm, from legal speculation to "get your pitchforks" outrage attacks.
Note that I'm not arguing against free and open discussion in forums such as HN; people should be physically able to post whatever they want. My point is instead that the community should be sensitive to underqualified commentary in disciplines beyond its expertise. Less accepting, in a way.
Credentialing is but one way this has been done, but understandably not the best one here.
I hear where you're coming from, but I disagree with regards to the HN community specifically. I hope most members here understand that there's a huge gray area between our "extpertise-es." Personally, I have degrees in biology and env. science but I've been a software dev for 15 years. I'm not really sure where I fit in. Does that mean I can't have an opinion on environmental science topics because I'm "not in practice?" I can't speak for the medical advice topics (because I'm largely ignorant), but I always take the opinions on this site with a grain of salt.
Just because we may not be "credentialed" doesn't mean our opinions are worthless or detrimental. Most of us are simply happy to contribute where we can, and we spend most of our time learning things that are beyond our comfort zone. After having been here for almost 5 years, I can suss out the wheat from the chafe, and I like hearing the variety of opinions regardless of their credentials. And most of the time I take the position of "student" trying to learn something from others. The breadth of expertise here is astounding, and I'm continually in awe of what people are doing. Could you be taking this too seriously?
Ninja edit: softened my tone about taking things seriously (one of my personal shortcomings).
> The most clear-cut example is that of medical discussions; medical commentary or speculation from under-qualified individuals can do real harm.
The same could be said for credentialed experts, especially in the medical field. Taking steps to prevent users from freely discussing topics under the guise of protecting them can prevent unpopular but correct opinions from seeing the light of day. If somebody says something you can refute, then correct them in a civil way. That's how lots of people learn and grow - they put their theories out into the world and see how well they hold up to scrutiny. Making it "less accepting" to say something you believe is true because you're not sufficiently credentialed is actively suppressing free and open discussion.
A lot of popular opinions are also terribly wrong. I'm referring to the fact that popular opinion should not prevent people from reading an alternate viewpoint to begin with. If all we're allowed to read and discuss are popular opinions, there's a lot of potentially valuable information we're missing. People here can read, discuss facts, debunk falsehoods and make up their own minds.
Sometimes this is true, but sometimes undertrained perspectives can be quite detrimental. The most clear-cut example is that of medical discussions; medical commentary or speculation from under-qualified individuals can do real harm. Many communities on the web have recognized this and have taken measures to protect users[1].
Medical advice is a pretty extreme example as far as detrimental discussions, but there are some shades of gray that I've seen show up on HN. As a biologist, the ones I've found most grating are those that reflect poor training in the the life sciences, where HNers make pseudoscientific or unscientific claims. It's easy to call these things "opinions", but they are actively harmful when most users will not be able to tell that they are incorrect.
There are certainly other cases where underinformed commenters end up doing harm, from legal speculation to "get your pitchforks" outrage attacks.
Note that I'm not arguing against free and open discussion in forums such as HN; people should be physically able to post whatever they want. My point is instead that the community should be sensitive to underqualified commentary in disciplines beyond its expertise. Less accepting, in a way.
Credentialing is but one way this has been done, but understandably not the best one here.
[1]http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/s4chc/meta_medic...