SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
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This discussion has been archived.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.
There *__is* intelligent life on Earth, but I leave for Texas on Monday.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @05:03PM
First, janrinok, thanks for all your hard work! In large measure I agree with your concerns about "crowdsourcing" the submissions process. It sounds like a whole lot more work for the editors with benefits that are, at best, doubtful. I think the job of the editors should be to, well, edit submissions. They should clean up grammar, spelling, and edit for brevity and clarity; they should also check all links to make sure they work properly, perhaps even go looking for better links (assuming any exist). The one thing that I think editors do need to improve on is to edit out any cheerleading of the submitter to promote an agenda. I can't tell you how annoying and condescending it is, for example, when the submitter or the editor ask loaded questions that are designed to lead the reader to what is obviously their own preferred conclusion on the story. If the original submitter or the editor want to push an agenda they should do that in the comments like everybody else. In fact I would think that, alone, would go a long way to stifling groupthink on the site. Other than that, I wouldn't really change much else.
(Score: 3, Informative) by janrinok on Friday May 29 2015, @05:58PM
Thank you.
Another part of our job is editing those stories that do contain bias, personal agendas, or are unbalanced or unfair, because they do not comply with the requirements stated in the submission guidelines. We can do this in one of two ways. We can simply reject the submission. While we do not hesitate to do so, it results in even fewer submissions to work with. Or we can edit the existing submission - remove the bias and personal agendas, and ensure that the summary is balanced and fair. We try, wherever possible, to provide links to additional material to do this task for us but, in some cases, such material does not exist or simply cannot be found. We therefore have to adopt a neutral standpoint and try to view the submission from another angle. It is this that has been misconstrued as 'editors pushing their own points of view'. We are simply looking at the problem from a different aspect to provide material that is suitable for release. Otherwise, all the work that has been done is simply wasted effort.
As you are probably aware, all summaries are reviewed by at least 2 different editors during routine operations. Any individual bias introduced by an editor would be detected by another and the summary would not be released. Any editor - no matter how junior or inexperienced - can stop the release of any story to the front page. They are all told to do so if they have any doubts whatsoever about a summary's suitability for release. However, both editors understand that we are often struggling to provide enough stories for the front page and that discarding submissions not only wastes existing material but quickly dissuades others from making their own submissions too. If we can edit a submission to make it acceptable then I feel that we should at least try to do so. Again, I stress, this is not editors trying to force any particular viewpoint but simply trying to ensure that the submissions is edited until it complies with the submission guidelines [soylentnews.org]. Such action is bound to be the polar opposite of any bias shown by the original submitter which is why they tend to get annoyed. The final summary, however, is balanced and neutral.