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, Insightful) by Appalbarry on Sunday May 24 2015, @08:45PM
If you submit copy to a publication with an editor you'll get edited. Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse.
"Real" writers understand this, and accept that some edits aren't what you would prefer. Volunteer or amateur editors just amplify things.
If you really feel that the editing is a problem you should step up and volunteer. Or go start your own web site.
All things considered the story editing here is reasonable, and happily free of the most egregious grammatical and spelling mistakes.
It may not be New York Times, but for a volunteer effort it's not bad.
And, and this is a BIG and, at least Soylent is prepared to step up and apologize if they do something really boneheaded - that's incredibly rare.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Sunday May 24 2015, @09:57PM
If you submit copy to a publication with an editor you'll get edited. Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse.
Usually for the better. At least professionally if I were a better editor than the editor, I'd be the editor. I've seen some pretty hideous peer output in college writing classes.
It would be very interesting to see the quality level of raw unedited submissions. Its hard to decide what to advise if we're in a vacuum about if we're any good or if we suck. My gut level feeling is we don't totally suck but we give editors enough gray hairs that they get in the habit of "fixing" things which is mostly excellent and occasionally a disaster, just like most other human manual labor.
It would be interesting to test for a week, do no editing at all other than the most trivial of filtering out spam.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @10:12PM
Real writers understand:
o That editor is there to help improve the quality of the work (spelling, grammar), not change its meaning or voice.
o That if the editor does not like the work, it is rejected. The writer can try again, once the rules / policies are in place so the writer understands what is wanted or can go to another editor / publisher to submit.
o Real editors do not rewriter another's work and make it something else and places the original author's name to it.
It is that last line, is the real trust that is between writers and editors.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Marand on Monday May 25 2015, @12:26AM
o That if the editor does not like the work, it is rejected. The writer can try again, once the rules / policies are in place so the writer understands what is wanted or can go to another editor / publisher to submit.
o Real editors do not rewriter another's work and make it something else and places the original author's name to it.
These are important, but I think the editors are trying to go the extra mile fixing things instead of rejecting outright, because there's no good way to notify the submitter that they were rejected, and why.
That means it's a technical problem, not a social one: allow notifications for rejection, supply a brief note about the rejection, and allow the submitter to resubmit with changes.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday May 25 2015, @01:08PM
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Tuesday May 26 2015, @06:36AM
o Separate their own opinions on the matter from the actual story being submitted and clearly define which is which.
You could also make a case for "leave personal opinions out of it and submit them as comments", but that's really down to the specific story - sometimes the opinion is needed to spur discussion, or actually *is* the intended topic of discussion.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!