It's funny considering that one premise of Hubski is that discussion can bring value to the article. I wonder if there is data to support this. Somehow I doubt that this is the case. One thing that I often think upon is the context in which we have these conversations. IMO many of these approaches are akin to gardening without considering the quality of the soil. If the soil is not fertile, then weeds will grow best. Quality conversations happen under certain conditions, and most commenting systems are not built with a mind towards the experience of the quality commentor.The nasty comment thread polarized the opinion of readers, leading them to misunderstand the original article.
Instead of silent participation leading gradually to more active participation as one becomes more comfortable with the site, it seems the opposite is happening: mildly active users are now becoming silent users as it is easier to click 'Share on Facebook' than to post a brief comment.