Steven D'Aprano writes:
> As I see it, the two camps are divided purely on the question of how to
> get increased privileges.
As I see it, the division is over what constitutes merit, and how it
is created or improved.
> Both sides agree that merit is a requirement, but the disagreement
> is on how to prove you have such merit.
I disagree vehemently with that characterization of my position (and
I strongly suspect David would, too). The primary argument of the
"quality" camp as I see it is that the familiarization period
*creates* value, both in terms of training ("merit" for the job) and
interpersonal relationships ("building community"). Thus it is a *net
benefit*, not a *net cost*. AFAICS, the "quantity" camp sees it as a
nearly pure loss, simply slowing down inflow of preexisting "merit"
(and perhaps discouraging it entirely).
> > *By definition*, a community is not diverse in the most fundamental
> > sense.
>
> I think you're using a definition of community that doesn't appear in
> any dictionary I'm aware of, nor do I understand what you mean by "most
> fundamental sense" of diverse. Talking about diversity within a single
> community is not an oxymoron.
Where did I write "oxymoron"? The grammar was a bit awkward, but my
point is simple: the root of the word "community" is *common*.
Therefore it makes sense to bring in newcomers via a process which
accustoms them to the commonality, of whatever degree, the community
is based on.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4