Well, well. If we go to SO we see that a "matsemann" has been a member for 11 years, had 20,000+ reputation points, and is a "publicist" and a "steward".
Usually writers do "full disclosure" when their objectivity is open to question.
Especially when they have 15 comments on one post. One does suspect they have an axe to grind.
As for "knowing about it" -- when hordes of people try it once or twice and get instantly repulsed (an experience we see in the other comments here), you could certainly claim they don't "know about it." However, that doesn't disqualify them.
Otherwise, Survivor Bias only lets in the people who like it.
Wow, what damning evidence! Someone commenting about a forum is a member of said forum! What a scoop, Pulitzer incoming!
Even in my very first post in this discussion, I mentioned review queues and what I feel is wrong with SO recently. It's pretty clear to everyone with reading skills that I'm therefore an active member there. And no sane person would think my "objectivity is open to question" based on me commenting a few lines about an article. I'm not a "writer", I'm just commenting on an article. What a weird thing to demand "full disclosure" of.
(And if you knew anything about SO (which I think one should do when discussing it..), you'd know that the badges you mention is just things normal members can do. I have no extra privileges or responsibility, as you seem to imply)
Edit: the comment I'm replying to has been massively edited since I wrote this.
As for my 15 comments: it's me in the root of the discussion. I'm not all over the comments, I'm just responding to comments in the tree of comments I've started. I don't think that should be discouraged.
And nice straw man in your last sentence. Quite ironic while complaining about SO being the toxic ones..
reply