SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
This is a topic that comes up all too often in comments, lambasting editors or praising them.
As it stands, editorial is a black box, they accept submissions, fettle them, then they appear as stories. Recently, the Original Submission link appeared on stories so you can see what went in and what appeared out of that black box, yet still the complaints come.
Just how much transparency is necessary? (This is an open question not rhetorical)
I like to believe that SoylentNews is the people that form it as a community, and the editing should reflect that.
Should we adopt some version control for subs so everyone can see who edited what through the pipeline that goes from sub to front page?
Thoughts on a postcard please.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
META: Editorial Transparency - What do you want?
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 93 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Nadia Comaneci, simple perfection.
-- '76 Olympics
(Score: 5, Insightful) by frojack on Friday May 29 2015, @06:26AM
I never had a problem with the editing.
But I figured I'd play along and click those links to the original story, and see what the editors did.
I never saw a single edit that I thought was unjustified.
I'm appalled that what little care some people put into their submissions, and amazed at the job the editors did
getting some of these messes ready for publication.
I think we should go back to the way it was.
There, I said it. This has all been a tempest in a teapot by people trying to abuse the site, and abuse the editors.
Personally, I'd be fine in removing those links, they serve no purpose but to drive a wedge between the site an the
editors.
All of this was started by the demands of a few people who can't post anything but inflammatory stories in the most inflammatory way.
There will always be malcontents. These are exactly the WRONG people to micromanage the editors.
Not every edit needs to be quibbled over.
A clumsy sentence needs fixing, as does an inflammatory one.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by fleg on Friday May 29 2015, @06:53AM
completely agree.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @12:01PM
Then reject the the submitters story. Do not rewrite and put their name to it. "XXXXXX writes:" XXXXX did not write what follows. The editor did.
Maybe change the format to "xxxxx submitted THIS LINK, SN desided to post this instead:"
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday May 29 2015, @06:19PM
(Score: 2) by jbWolf on Friday May 29 2015, @03:23PM
Go back to the way it was? I dunno. I kinda like it like knowing what the original submitter sent. It helps me learn a bit more about the submitter. Agree with everything else you said 100%. Sure, there's the occasional hiccup, but overall, editors here are awesome.
www.jb-wolf.com [jb-wolf.com]
(Score: 2) by mrcoolbp on Friday May 29 2015, @05:10PM
The eventual goal is to have the link to original submission appear in the "Related Stories" box or maybe somewhere in the title bar (like next to the "dept.") Until then we may continue to include the link in the story itself.
(Score:1^½, Radical)
(Score: 2) by jbWolf on Friday May 29 2015, @07:54PM
I don't see a problem moving it elsewhere. I just liked the general concept of being able to look at the original it when I wanted.
www.jb-wolf.com [jb-wolf.com]