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: 3, Interesting) by Marand on Monday May 25 2015, @12:20AM
In another life I'm administrator on an indescribably diverse webcomic forum, and have had to confront issues related to this.
There's no one right answer. Allowing flames and rants makes a place more stimulating, and more welcoming to people who have grievances. Enforcing civility keeps things open to quiet conflict-avoidant people, and is likely to raise the quality of discussion.
As long as the policy is transparent and the submitters are presented fairly, "there is no right and wrong, only choice". The only cromulent way to answer the question is to go back to first principles and think about what the site's goals are.
If this were about policing the comments you might have a point, but it's not. Summaries should be an accurate representation of the submitted link, and that generally means limiting the amount of snark, soap-box ranting, and fact-twisting. Rephrasing the story to elicit the desired opinions may be common, but it's also intellectually dishonest. Flamebait and trolling belongs in the comments, not the summaries.
Nobody seems to be suggesting controlling the comments beyond the existing moderation system. You can say anything, hostile or contentious or even downright insane, and the worst that happens is it gets downmodded. If you want to submit a summary and then rant about it in the comments with half-truths and lies, nobody is stopping you, but that doesn't belong in the summaries.
I still think we need a comment field as part of the submission process so that we can have neutral submissions without requiring the submitter wait for the submission to go live to editorialise. Have the comment go live when the summary does, and have it be immune to editor influence beyond all-or-nothing removal (to block spam and the like).