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: 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.