> Contributing to Wikipedia is quite fun and not enough people do it. You don't even need to make an account.

How is this not in the spirit of HN? Sure you might already know, but are we not to share knowledge/opinion because readers might already know it?

Plus, other people (like me) also read these comments, and they might lack relevant knowledge... educating is not a bad thing.

Educating is a great thing. Patronising not so much.

If the OP's comment is for the good of the wider community, it should probably not contain a friendly yet subtle insult to the tune of "rather than just criticising, get off your backside and do something about it, you might even enjoy it".

And I'd be very surprised if someone reading HN is unaware that Wikipedia can be edited...

I did not find the comment patronizing. Assuming bad intent on the part of other commentators is ALSO not in the HN spirit.

How is it not patronising?! The person is telling me that they disagree with my viewpoint - and rather than then explaining why they disagree, they decide to explain to me that I can edit Wikipedia! To me, that is patronising.

While their language is mild and friendly, their message is utterly patronising.

> To me, that is patronising.

To me, that is not patronizing. Just like your original comment about the photos and the original reply, this is all subjective.

That you chose to take offense to subjective, measured comments is something you may want to spend time considering.

I disagree, but regardless, this sounds more like a comment for Reddit instead of HN. Better yet, rather than criticising my interpretation, you could go find examples of better comments and enjoy reading them at your leisure. Or you could even come up with your own and add them to the HN page. Contributing to HN is quite fun and not enough people do it. You do need to make an account, but it's free and only takes a sec. -- Sound familiar? Do you feel patronised at all?

The comment reads:

> you could go find better examples (with a free license) or take your own and add them to the article.

That

> they decide to explain to me that I can edit Wikipedia!

is simply untrue. Had that been the case, I’m sure everyone would agree it was patronising.

However it does not say "you can edit Wikipedia," more like "if you think there is a problem, you are free to fix the problem."

Indeed English can be ambiguous, but I do not think that can be interpreted as patronizing.

In the spirit of Wikipedia, I'd suggest assuming good will...