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: 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