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: 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.