Answering those questions first requires a standard of value to evaluate the options. HN is a rare site that sets an explicit standard for posts: they should “[gratify] one's intellectual curiosity”.
It’s not a great standard, partly because “gratify” implies a whole set of metaphysical value judgements. But it is better than none at all and can be reasonably inferred to place value on attributes like objectivity, expertise, comprehensiveness, and conciseness.
Should links be swapped even if there isn’t anything technically wrong with the original? Yes, if the replacement is better at gratifying intellectual curiosity.
Is there value if diversity of sources? Yes, but not sources that exhibit obvious bias, are poorly written, or woefully incomplete.
Wouldn’t it be better to post another article instead? Maybe, if both articles are good.
It’s not a great standard, partly because “gratify” implies a whole set of metaphysical value judgements. But it is better than none at all and can be reasonably inferred to place value on attributes like objectivity, expertise, comprehensiveness, and conciseness.
Should links be swapped even if there isn’t anything technically wrong with the original? Yes, if the replacement is better at gratifying intellectual curiosity.
Is there value if diversity of sources? Yes, but not sources that exhibit obvious bias, are poorly written, or woefully incomplete.
Wouldn’t it be better to post another article instead? Maybe, if both articles are good.