On one hand, I think that’s a lovely and important sentiment. This community does get bogged down in certain kinds of criticism and theorizing, and likewise can miss out on recognizing the good achieved.
On the other, ignoring “controversial achievements” is… well. A rather slippery concept; what’s controversial to one might be great to another.
Thank you being willing to respond with actual words and not just voting.
For the people downvoting/disagreeing with this comment:
Do you think these weren’t achievements, per se? Why not?
Do you disagree that they should be listed as achievements, and as such are inappropriate for this list? If so, under what conditions if any should community-building efforts be counted as EA achievements?
Do you disagree with the characterization of them as “stately homes”? That’s a fair terminological disagreement, and I would agree that’s misleading terminology as they’re not intended to be permanent living quarters (AFAIK). Given the possibility of other explanations, however, clarification would be appreciated rather than or at least in addition to the silent downvote.
While I am unaware of any actual studies supporting it (indeed, the nature of the problem makes it rather resistant to study), that statement sounds like a rephrasing or redevelopment of what’s sometimes known as Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy:
Your last line, if I’m understanding you correctly, is to suggest that this is a good thing because of the nature of those in the second category in EA. One can imagine situations where this would be the case, such as Plato’s philosopher-kings worthy of trust.