October 1, 2013
I can understand the decision at PopSci. They present articles to inform, not foster discussion. My blog is more like you describe here for TC, Josh. If my writing didn't prompt readers to engage in the comments, I'd start to suspect I wasn't doing it right.
P.S. Yes, I see the irony of commenting here after you called me out in your article.
I figured you'd spot that, Tim! And yes, Popular Science is certainly a different beast, even if all online comment threads face some of the same challenges that led to their decision.
Thanks, Josh, for the thoughtful response. I would add that TC's commitment to engaging with the authors beyond the original piece is an important part of this. The expectation that authors will respond to the comments themselves helps foster a greater sense of collaborative communication that hopefully helps reduce the amount of general internet trolling.
I don't think Popular Science would have a problem with their commenting if it weren't for OBAMACARE!
Thanks a lot, John. Here we go... ;)
I want to blame fluoridated water. Can I blame fluoridated water, please Josh?
You've rather eloquently summarized TC's ministry here, Josh. It means a lot to me that a community like TC exists to spark and responsibly moderate informed, probing discussion about Christian discipleship in such a wonky world as ours. In so many ways, TC has become the Sunday School class I never had growing up.
Add your comment to join the discussion!