SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Myself and other submitters have noticed that articles are being edited to change the tone and intent of our stories.
Soylentil McD has suggested that "Minor edits, spelling corrections, and such, are no problem and to be expected." but "I think soylent editors should adhere to a policy of not putting words in the submitter's mouth".
I agree with that. If the editors want to add their own two cents, they can respond inline like the rest of us. Their role here is to be responsible, not privileged.
The stories we submit are a reflection of our enthusiasms and beliefs, the tone and character of those posts is as much part of the submitter's story as the actual content. The community is what makes sites like SN and Slashdot before it, an eclectic community with a wide range of opinions, styles and passions will always be more active and interesting than a bland monoculture. SN's editors should embrace and encourage that diversity, not sabotage it to appease some corporate interests.
So what do other Soylentils think? Should the submissions be allowed to stand as a clear reflection of the community's intent, or should the editors change our submissions to suit their perception of suitability?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by BK on Sunday May 24 2015, @06:11PM
The editors and the staff have a responsibility to ensure that this site can continue to exist. It has been made clear that this site could fold over a meaningful legal challenge. I for one would like to see SN stay on the 'net.
To that end, postings to the main page may require edits or wholesale rewrites to be made suitable. Our comments however appear to remain our own apart from moderation. We need to grow up and accept this.
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Sunday May 24 2015, @07:09PM
It's a matter of developing a policy to clearly express who is saying what in the summary. If the submission cannot be posted as submitted, perhaps re-write it and say [editor's name] writes at the bottom thank the submitter for bringing it to attention. That way credit is given where due and nobody gets words put in their mouth.
Or set a policy that the submitter's words are their own and may not reflect the views of the editors or the site itself, much like the comments.
(Score: 2) by BK on Sunday May 24 2015, @07:46PM
This is not feasible. To make it work (legally), we'd have to see every garbage post on the main page, sans editing, as soon as it was submitted. Every repeat. Every Spam. Everything. Just like with the comments.
Any attempt to keep it clean, or professional, or relevant, or interesting creates liability.
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday May 24 2015, @07:48PM
submitter's words are their own ...
I think that part goes without saying, even though we say so in every story:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
The situation here is that a submitter alleged to a cited article stated something it didn't actually say. And when caught at it by the editor, complained that the editor's changes put words into his mouth. The VERY THING that his submission did.
I agree that submitters should take the time to separate their own editorializing, and not attribute them to the cited links. However, in the present instance there is every indication that the submitter intentionally said TFA published something which it did in fact, not say. It went to the front page of SN before being caught.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by sjames on Sunday May 24 2015, @08:28PM
I think that part goes without saying, even though we say so in every story:
Apparently is dose NOT go without saying since there was a fear of being sued (expressed by some anyway) where nobody seems to express the same fear WRT the comments., So perhaps it should just be said.
The situation here is that a submitter alleged to a cited article stated something it didn't actually say. And when caught at it by the editor, complained that the editor's changes put words into his mouth. The VERY THING that his submission did.
What the submitter did or did not do is irrelevant. I'm not calling anyone outy here, just suggesting a way to avoid future misunderstandings.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @08:54PM
Then simply reject the post and ask for it to be re-submitted. Allow the poster to fix the problem with their words. Maybe help guide the writer to make it better. LIKE REAL EDITORS!
Once the editor goes beyond that line, then SN is not longer "by and for the people". SN starts ghost writing articles, it has crossed to the dark-side, then get your own damn stories, do not depend on us to feed you. Get your advertising going, and sell to Dice.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Monday May 25 2015, @02:38AM
thats a good suggestion, but rejections don't come with reasons. they need to, but as of now they don't.
(Score: 2) by CoolHand on Monday May 25 2015, @03:36AM
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job-Douglas Adams
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday May 25 2015, @09:09AM
> It's a matter of developing a policy to clearly express who is saying what in the summary.
Irrelevant.
The correct soylenting involves these steps:
0 read title
1 skip TFA
2 skip TFS
3 pub some comment
4 read replies
5 from the replies infer the topic of the discussion.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 1) by Pseudonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @07:39PM
The editors and the staff have a responsibility to ensure journalistic integrity and rigor. Rewriting a story because "their lawyers might think it's slander and only then send us an angry letter" is a hell of a stretch.
And even if they come after us (a non-profit org with public finances), I thought we paid a lawyer a retainer?
What the fuck, man...
If SN has less journalistic rigor than fucking Kotaku [deepfreeze.it]?, I will take my business someplace else.
(Score: 1) by Pseudonymous Coward on Monday May 25 2015, @05:28AM
Let me ask this rhetorical question: If SN self-censors because of things that might happen, how much backbone do you think this website has to standing up to legal threats and defending it's rights in face of a legal adversary (read: corporation who's mad)?
(Score: 1) by Zanothis on Tuesday May 26 2015, @04:15PM
Let's be clear; we have two things going on here.
The change to the submission to remove the word blackmail was Responsible Journalism™ since there was a very clear misuse of the word. They made a despicable move in trying to leverage their position as an employer in the area to try to influence the politics in the region to try to preserve their market-share. It was not, however blackmail. Apparently, no other journalist, news aggregator, etc. has used that word to describe what was done because use of that word in this context is libelous.
That being said, the attempt to put words in the submitter's mouth in an attempt to remove bias is problematic. I have no problem with the way that Microsoft was portrayed in the submission, I think. This is the problem with making changes to the text. AFAIK, I don't have problems with the original submission, but I can't tell from the summary if that's due to the editorial changes or if the submission was generally informative.
It does seem like rehash really needs a way for the editors to kick back an article to the submitter with a note indicating what's wrong. In the meantime, a new convention definitely needs to be developed in order to separate submitter/editor statements and to try to make the editing process a bit more transparent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 25 2015, @08:58PM
It has been made clear that this site could fold over a meaningful legal challenge. I for one would like to see SN stay on the 'net.
I agree by name, I disagree by form. Yes, anything that can be owned (imaginary/intellectual property, domain names, SSL certificates) can be seized in a bankruptcy, but because this site is mostly built with community work, rented computing capacity, and commodity bandwidth, it can be reborn as often as there is interest.