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?
Related Stories
When the UK government announced plans to shift to the .odf Open Document Format, and away from Microsoft's proprietary .doc and .docx formats, Microsoft threatened to move its research facilities out of the UK.
The prime minister's director of strategy at the time, Steve Hilton, said that "Microsoft phoned Conservative MPs with Microsoft R&D facilities in their constituencies and said we will close them down in your constituencies if this goes through" "We just resisted. You have to be brave," Hilton said.
Although I am not a great lover of Microsoft, I'm not sure that this is any different than many other companies who will try to protect their profits - and, arguably, the jobs of their employees - when they can see the potential for the loss of business. But perhaps other companies are a little more subtle - especially when it is obvious that official papers will one day become public knowledge.
[Editor's Comment: This submission has been significantly edited - comment is not attributable to sigma]
[Editor's Comment: Please see public apology regarding this story.]
(Score: 5, Interesting) by BK on Sunday May 24 2015, @06:11PM
The editors and the staff have a responsibility to ensure that this site can continue to exist. 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.
To that end, postings to the main page may require edits or wholesale rewrites to be made suitable. Our comments however appear to remain our own apart from moderation. We need to grow up and accept this.
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Sunday May 24 2015, @07:09PM
It's a matter of developing a policy to clearly express who is saying what in the summary. If the submission cannot be posted as submitted, perhaps re-write it and say [editor's name] writes at the bottom thank the submitter for bringing it to attention. That way credit is given where due and nobody gets words put in their mouth.
Or set a policy that the submitter's words are their own and may not reflect the views of the editors or the site itself, much like the comments.
(Score: 2) by BK on Sunday May 24 2015, @07:46PM
This is not feasible. To make it work (legally), we'd have to see every garbage post on the main page, sans editing, as soon as it was submitted. Every repeat. Every Spam. Everything. Just like with the comments.
Any attempt to keep it clean, or professional, or relevant, or interesting creates liability.
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday May 24 2015, @07:48PM
submitter's words are their own ...
I think that part goes without saying, even though we say so in every story:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
The situation here is that a submitter alleged to a cited article stated something it didn't actually say. And when caught at it by the editor, complained that the editor's changes put words into his mouth. The VERY THING that his submission did.
I agree that submitters should take the time to separate their own editorializing, and not attribute them to the cited links. However, in the present instance there is every indication that the submitter intentionally said TFA published something which it did in fact, not say. It went to the front page of SN before being caught.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by sjames on Sunday May 24 2015, @08:28PM
I think that part goes without saying, even though we say so in every story:
Apparently is dose NOT go without saying since there was a fear of being sued (expressed by some anyway) where nobody seems to express the same fear WRT the comments., So perhaps it should just be said.
The situation here is that a submitter alleged to a cited article stated something it didn't actually say. And when caught at it by the editor, complained that the editor's changes put words into his mouth. The VERY THING that his submission did.
What the submitter did or did not do is irrelevant. I'm not calling anyone outy here, just suggesting a way to avoid future misunderstandings.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @08:54PM
Then simply reject the post and ask for it to be re-submitted. Allow the poster to fix the problem with their words. Maybe help guide the writer to make it better. LIKE REAL EDITORS!
Once the editor goes beyond that line, then SN is not longer "by and for the people". SN starts ghost writing articles, it has crossed to the dark-side, then get your own damn stories, do not depend on us to feed you. Get your advertising going, and sell to Dice.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Monday May 25 2015, @02:38AM
thats a good suggestion, but rejections don't come with reasons. they need to, but as of now they don't.
(Score: 2) by CoolHand on Monday May 25 2015, @03:36AM
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job-Douglas Adams
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday May 25 2015, @09:09AM
> It's a matter of developing a policy to clearly express who is saying what in the summary.
Irrelevant.
The correct soylenting involves these steps:
0 read title
1 skip TFA
2 skip TFS
3 pub some comment
4 read replies
5 from the replies infer the topic of the discussion.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 1) by Pseudonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @07:39PM
The editors and the staff have a responsibility to ensure journalistic integrity and rigor. Rewriting a story because "their lawyers might think it's slander and only then send us an angry letter" is a hell of a stretch.
And even if they come after us (a non-profit org with public finances), I thought we paid a lawyer a retainer?
What the fuck, man...
If SN has less journalistic rigor than fucking Kotaku [deepfreeze.it]?, I will take my business someplace else.
(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.
(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.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by gman003 on Sunday May 24 2015, @06:11PM
I've seen a fair number of summaries that were just horribly written, or completely inaccurate, or just preposterously provocative in tone. I expect the editors have been changing summaries of that sort, not the ones that are basically fine as they were.
In that case, I would suggest completely rewriting the summary, giving credit to the original author for the link but making it clear that the entire summary was changed. That should help solve the problematic summaries without falsely attributing statements to anyone.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday May 24 2015, @06:24PM
The problem could be solved by including with every summary a link to the original submission, so people can see for themselves just how much things have changed -- that way would save the staff some effort and leave it up to the community to call out any differences.
Honestly, though, I think this incident was blown out of proportion. The editors deal with with a lot of submissions and occasionally fuck up like everybody else does. My recent submission about multiculturalism was actually edited to be less inflammatory than the original submission, and with that I have no problem.
The only minor gripe I have about the editing process is that stylistic writing (in a conversational tone rather than grammatically correct, for example) that enriches the submission is sometimes changed to sound more formal. And pet-peeves are for assholes, but one of my little stylistic pet-peeves is seeing something like:
It just kinda throws the rhythm off, you know?
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @06:51PM
And pet-peeves are for assholes, so one of my [...]
FTFY.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by GungnirSniper on Sunday May 24 2015, @07:44PM
It would be nice if the site had a "submitted by" field as part of the header like the "posted by" that indicates the editor. Like this, without the hosts showing:
Submitted by sigma [mailto], posted by n1 [soylentnews.org] on Sunday May 24, @06:06AM.
This would also make it easier for our editors since they wouldn't need to manually create the "So-and-so writes:" line. And this would also allow the block-submitter feature that some users request occasionally.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday May 24 2015, @08:11PM
Agreed, that would make the problem go away, and allow the original submitter's lead in to prevail.
OTOH, there is no reason why we need to start off our submissions with the cited article up front. (I admit I do this myself quite a bit). You can open the submission with a table setter paragraph, or even with your own opinion, and then drift into the supporting quotes and links.
Since we all know that the "submitter" writes.... is going to be there, we can try to work around it.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by GoodBookOfTaunts on Monday May 25 2015, @03:09AM
Seconded. Including the original would help reveal how much editing is happening. Even better world be a diff tool to quickly show the alterations. Right now the amount of editing performed is difficult to gauge and seems like it is only measured anecdotally.
With data it's also possible to automate measuring the habits of different editors, at least with respect to quantity.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Marand on Sunday May 24 2015, @11:56PM
I've seen a fair number of summaries that were just horribly written, or completely inaccurate, or just preposterously provocative in tone. I expect the editors have been changing summaries of that sort, not the ones that are basically fine as they were.
In that case, I would suggest completely rewriting the summary, giving credit to the original author for the link but making it clear that the entire summary was changed. That should help solve the problematic summaries without falsely attributing statements to anyone.
I don't agree, because as I keep saying, summaries are not your* personal soap box to use as you please. Linking to the original like that just encourages creating extremist submissions proselytising the submitter's cause or demonising whatever they hold a grudge against (hi gewg_), while simultaneously putting more work on the editors to turn rubbish into a useful summary.
I already said this yesterday in the apology discussion on the same topic [soylentnews.org], but summaries should strive to be neutral. Nobody is perfect, but that should at least be the goal of both submitter and editor. The summary is not a soapbox where you can talk shit without fear of downmods; write a neutral summary and post in the comments section like the rest of us. If that isn't what you want, maybe you should start a blog or make a journal entry instead of a submission. That goes for editors too, though they've been pretty good about it overall.
To that end, I think the best way to handle it is to simply deny bad submissions. If the submission is potentially interesting but presented poorly, it should be rejected with a message to the submitter. Something like "Submission rejected: heavy bias. Please re-submit with neutral POV." That would take the re-write burden off of the editors, letting them focus on editing instead. They signed on to be editors, not writers, and it's silly to expect them to rewrite bad submissions.
It's equally silly to expect submissions to just get passed through with nothing more than a spellcheck. I'm not just talking content reformatting or other changes; I've seen complaints in the past about editors changing the headline or the dept. line, which is absolutely ridiculous.
* in the general sense, not you specifically.
(Score: 2) by Marand on Monday May 25 2015, @01:42AM
Addendum: I think it's possible to allow some editorialising while still keeping summaries neutral, rather than being all-or-nothing. I said something about it here [soylentnews.org], and Jesus_666 followed up with a good suggestion about it as well.
TL;DR: if you want to allow editorialising in any form, there needs to be a clear separation of the editorial part from the neutral summary, both in the submission process and the final summary.
(Score: 2) by gman003 on Monday May 25 2015, @02:42AM
Neutral, as defined by whom? Do we need to edit summaries on any climate change articles, to repeat the party line about how god couldn't possibly allow us to destroy the planet? Do we need to give al-Baghdadi's side to every ISIS story? Should every Tesla article be followed by adicles for gas-powered cars?
Strict neutrality is boring, and fraught with false-balance problems, and it ultimately doesn't solve the problem of bias because readers are still going to have to look at what's written and check for bias, it's just going to be better-hidden rather than blatantly inflammatory. I would rather have summaries take a reasonable position - if the issue is merely factual, report it neutrally, if the issue is contentious, report both sides, if the issue is clearly one-sided, go ahead and take that side.
(Also, I never said to link to the original summary, just give a credit to the original for bringing attention to it. I don't think having a link would really be a big deal though; I expect it would mainly be read when the published version still sucks, to see whether to blame the editor or the original poster.)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Tork on Sunday May 24 2015, @06:19PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 3, Funny) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday May 24 2015, @06:26PM
Maybe if Soylent News tries hard enough to be perfect; it too will someday run nice, safe, neutral, impartial, professional stories like this one. [slashdot.org]
(Score: 5, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Sunday May 24 2015, @06:22PM
Can't we move 'Bash the Editors' day a couple weeks forward or backward? I hate when the holidays start to overlap.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @06:25PM
On controversial subjects, which include all topics which are political in nature including immigration, educational reform, copyrights, patents, and anything having to do with controversies involving individual politicians or political pundits.
Now, the links embedded in TFS might advocate one side or another, but in that case there should be some balance, preferably a dissenting link, or at least a reasonable dissenting quote from a spokesman for the other side. Or the choice of TFA often indicates a bias on the part of the submitter (e.g. one that links to Microsoft putting the arm on UK politicians is probably anti-Microsoft). That's OK if TFS does not conclude that the allegations must be true and that MS is therefore evil.
The idea should be that when TFA is editorial or in nature, the forum decides whether it is correct or not, not TFS. Here's what I found, I think it's worthwhile reading; you decide for yourself.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday May 24 2015, @07:20PM
I also think that submitters should be able to editorialize when they want (my rationale is that this is a community-driven site and not some mere regurgitation of news feeds), but the question is, how do you make it clear that you are editorializing? Should a submitter or editor note be included that states so? Should there be some kind of "agenda" flag? Submitters like myself and gewg_ tend to editorialize implicitly when submitting. I think the site has a decent balance of impartial (like Hugh Pickens) and implicitly editorial submissions (like mine and gewg_'s) to make it interesting. Too much agenda would make this place a permanent flame-fest and too much impartial reporting may reduce the value of the community gimmick of this site.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Marand on Monday May 25 2015, @12:04AM
but the question is, how do you make it clear that you are editorializing? Should a submitter or editor note be included that states so? Should there be some kind of "agenda" flag? Submitters like myself and gewg_ tend to editorialize implicitly when submitting.
Something I suggested a while back was to have a comment field included in the submission process. You create a neutral submission and provide any editorialising in the comment field. When the submission goes live, the comment automatically appears as first post, maybe starting with a score of 3 or something to stand out.
It's a win/win/win/win. Neutral summaries, submitters can still provide any opinionated stuff they want, we can downmod flamebait/troll editorials, and it discourages half-assed comments from people trying for "FRIST POST"
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Jesus_666 on Monday May 25 2015, @01:08AM
Instead I'd apply some standardized formatting to the contents of that field (if present) and then append them to the story proper. When the story is displayed, you get the neutral story followed by a box (or some other means of immediately making it apparent where the editorial starts) titled something like "[submitter]'s opinion on this".
Editors should have the power to rewrite the submission proper to make it sound more neutral if the changes are relatively minor and a comment is given; otherwise they should contact the submitter.
An example:
Disney Sued Over Nice Protagonists
Jesus_666 writes:
According to an article in The Local Newspaper, the Walt Disney Company was sued by activist group Bad People For Even Worse People (BPFEWP) because in their movies good things ultimately happen to good people. "This is unfair towards bad people," BPFEWP spokesperson Evil McBadguy said to The Local Newspaper, "because in real life good things can happen to bad people too and at least some children's movies should reflect that."
Jesus_666's thoughts on this:
Well, they do have a point, although Disney's earnings reports should serve as pretty good examples of works where billions of good things happen to bad people on a regular basis.
(Score: 2) by Marand on Monday May 25 2015, @01:35AM
Could work, though I'd hate losing the ability to mod the commentary portion, which is why I suggested the other.
Still, it's probably a lot easier to implement that way. Add a field to the submission process and automatically join them together like that for the editor to work with when editing. Would likely be a lot less mucking around with the arcane voodoo rituals that are slashcode*
If you combine that with some sort of rejection-response system like I suggested elsewhere -- a way for editors to reject a submission and send a brief notice of why it was rejected -- you'd have a way to request resubmissions based either on neutrality problems in the summary or blatant flamebait/trolling in the submitter editorial portion.
* or whatever it was that SN renamed it to. I remember them renaming it but blanking on the name.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday May 25 2015, @11:04AM
For a period of about 3 - 4 months during mid-2014 we used email to contact submitters to explain why their story had been rejected, how they might improve future submissions or simply say 'well done, but too late'. However, we received complaints from some of the submitters that they had not authorised us to contact them via email and that they considered our emails to them to be spam. After discussion, we decided that we would have to cease feedback via email.
Now a site specific messaging system is one solution but involves a lot of work for the devs and, so far, there has not been the community demand for such a thing. Alternatively, we could produce a simple web page that lists submitters (say for a period of 14 days after their last submission) and allows a text field to be used to give feedback. It's a little more public, but often there are good suggestions that could be adopted by more than one submitter. Those that want to access it can, those that don't can simply ignore it. If there is enough support for this then it can be done however, it needs to be prioritised along with all the other tasks that the devs currently have.
(Score: 2) by Marand on Monday May 25 2015, @11:39AM
For a period of about 3 - 4 months during mid-2014 we used email to contact submitters to explain why their story had been rejected, how they might improve future submissions or simply say 'well done, but too late'. However, we received complaints from some of the submitters that they had not authorised us to contact them via email and that they considered our emails to them to be spam. After discussion, we decided that we would have to cease feedback via email.
Add checkbox to the submission, default to on. "Allow editors to contact me about this submission," or something similar. If someone agrees and still bitches about spam they're just being deliberately obtuse and it isn't worth worrying about.
Alternatively, we could produce a simple web page that lists submitters (say for a period of 14 days after their last submission) and allows a text field to be used to give feedback. It's a little more public, but often there are good suggestions that could be adopted by more than one submitter. Those that want to access it can, those that don't can simply ignore it. If there is enough support for this then it can be done however, it needs to be prioritised along with all the other tasks that the devs currently have.
Basically a rejection queue that you can follow similarly to the submission queue. That's an interesting idea. More work than the checkbox/email thing, but more useful, so it might be a cool long-term solution.
However it's done, I think the basic idea is sound. Reject with request for changes instead of trying to rewrite it yourselves, more like a normal editor/writer relationship. Potentially less work for you guys, and it lets the submitter know what's going on instead of being surprised later by massive rewrites.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday May 25 2015, @01:05PM
More work than the checkbox/email thing
Actually, it would be easier from the editor's point of view as the email was a separate program. Using a web page makes the transfer of links and listing submitter names much easier.
We would much prefer to be able to give feedback, no matter how it is implemented, although it is a bit more work for us. Some submitters are deterred from submitting again after having a rejection. Being able to explain what the problem is, which might be nothing to do with the quality or content of the actual submission, helps encourage the community to submit. Regardless of the reason for rejection, any feedback helps build the relationship between submitters and editors which, as you have pointed out, is a welcome thing.
(Score: 2) by Marand on Monday May 25 2015, @01:20PM
Actually, it would be easier from the editor's point of view as the email was a separate program. Using a web page makes the transfer of links and listing submitter names much easier.
I meant that it would (probably) be more work to implement than a checkbox that adds a note that the submitter is willing to be contacted. If not, though, that's even better.
As for editor effort, I think it's likely obvious to anyone that it's more work to reject-with-reason than just reject quietly, though it seems like it would be less taxing overall than trying to rewrite interesting submissions because they need massive overhauls to become useful. Editing is hard enough without trying to replace huge chunks of the writing while doing it.
Being able to explain what the problem is, which might be nothing to do with the quality or content of the actual submission, helps encourage the community to submit. Regardless of the reason for rejection, any feedback helps build the relationship between submitters and editors which, as you have pointed out, is a welcome thing.
However it's done, I think it will be an overall positive for all, so I look forward to seeing what gets implemented. Every improvement to the submission process helps, no matter how minor. For example, when I sent my first submission, there was no indication of acceptance vs rejection, so when it disappeared, I thought it got rejected only to see it show up a few days later on the site. Since then, I've noticed a nice little pending story list that includes upcoming display times and all, and it helped a lot. Anything that makes the submission process more user-friendly helps encourage more submissions, and that's awesome.
(Score: 1) by KGIII on Monday May 25 2015, @04:02PM
You could just include an email form on the web page that only editors could see and it could be in the same place where you approve the submission or deny the submission. SendMail is a hellovadrug...
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday May 25 2015, @04:17PM
(Score: 1) by KGIII on Monday May 25 2015, @04:47PM
I kind of figured that but the statement was that email was a separate program and it doesn't have to be as there are a variety of elegant solutions available IF you opt to go that route. The idea of a check box asking for permission to respond via email (checked as default) is not an entirely bad idea and one needn't use an email client to send messages as it can be included on the page where the submission is checked or authorized for publication. That was my small suggestion though I probably could have worded it better.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday May 25 2015, @08:17PM
Sorry, I obviously misunderstood your earlier post.
However, if people are going to complain about us using the very email that they put on their submission then I fear that any effort down this route could turn out to be wasted. I like the idea of feedback being provided if wanted, but not being forced upon submitters who do not. Using either our own messaging system or a simple feedback web page could achieve this, and the latter appears to be the simpler of the two (based on nothing more than a gut feeling!). It would also enable us to provide feedback to ACs - they should at least recognise their own submission titles even if we edit them, and who remain unidentified and thus unable to receive emails.
There may yet be more (and better) suggestions on how we might provide feedback so thanks for your input - all comments help us to identify the possible options so that we can make the best choice.
(Score: 1) by KGIII on Monday May 25 2015, @08:40PM
The messaging system should work though I haven't read the /. code base in a LONG time. I played with it some time around five years ago - maybe as far back as ten? Anyhow, one additional thought (if you go with the messaging system), would be to include a prominent note on the main page that shows they have feedback in their message queue and to not simply show it in the new messages section. My thinking is a note that is in a bright color at the top of the page - perhaps floating as they scroll - a note and a link stating that their submission has feedback. I am envisioning something akin to the fairly new notices you see on sites that say they are using cookies and asking if you opt to select them. Many of those are at the top of the page with a yellow background and a link to accept or deny the cookies.
Either way, I agree, the messaging system is probably the best way to go about this as email is not really the best solution with the modern web.
To wit: If you check out the eye tracking of people viewing web sites the average person would potentially miss/not notice a new message notice on the right hand side in a timely manner. Placing the message prominently at the top would alleviate this problem and would be immediately picked up. For more on eye tracking and website usability see Jakob Nielsen. The best place, that I know of, to find his reports is here: http://www.nngroup.com/topic/eyetracking/ [nngroup.com] It is worth bookmarking the site. *nods*
Disclosure: I have no financial or personal interest in the linked site but have found it useful enough to share in instances such as this. The study of human behavior goes a long ways towards making a usable site and some functions are more important than others such as this topic - in my humble opinion.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday May 26 2015, @12:50AM
(Score: 3, Interesting) by deimtee on Monday May 25 2015, @03:51AM
I like the idea of an automatic first post for the submitter's opinions.
As I understand it, the trouble with having it in the submission is that as soon as an editor reads it and posts it, SN loses the ability to say it is owned by the submitter. Hence the need to avoid potentially litigious statements.
A submitter first post could be done entirely automatically without any editor seeing it.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @07:28PM
When it comes to copyprotection laws there is very little controversy. Our current laws are purely a result of corporate corruption. These secretive negotiations are a result of corruption. Those that pretend to disagree are mostly shills. Criticism against corruption shouldn't be held back just because some corporate shill doesn't like it.
As far as lawsuits are concerned so long as no laws are broken we should have a right to our opinion and not allow corporate interests to scare us. Otherwise we will essentially make it easier for those interests to get what they want and that's bad for all of us. Just look at our existing copy protection laws and consider that our corrupt government is pushing hard to extend and expand them and make them worse, in secrecy, with only corporate interests invited (until it's almost too late). The outrageous nature of this shouldn't be toned down, if anything it needs to be toned up. Much of the reason these corporations got away with corruption for so long is exactly because corporate owned giant media outlets were part of the problem. We need to be part of the solution. Otherwise we're no better than any other site and how can we be expected to make a positive difference. We shouldn't let corporate interests scare us into conformity.
(Score: 2) by hubie on Sunday May 24 2015, @10:43PM
This goes to the root of the problem. It is painfully obviously to you that the Good and True are on your side and all dissenting opinions are from shills, vagabonds and father-rapists. If article summaries are written up in this manner, you're going to kill readership, mainly because there are very few issues that present themselves so black-and-white. When the facts cannot support the sensationalized headlines and story submissions, why come here? At that point, throw in the towel and sell click-bait ads.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @11:10PM
Not all issues are black and white but some are. And when they are there is nothing wrong with calling them out.
Also, as others have said, those that hold dissenting views should be allowed to comment and have their submissions posted as well. That's how the site can be overall neutral. Allow some on one side of a debate to publish their opinion and allow someone else on another side to publish theirs as well. The site doesn't support one opinion or submitter over another.
(Score: 2) by hubie on Monday May 25 2015, @04:04AM
When you have motivated and emotional submitters, and I would argue you get a lot of overlap between them and the ones who exaggerate and mislead (intentionally or not) with their comments and stories, they are more likely to flood story submissions with issues that are important to them. I just don't think it is in the interest of this place for article summaries to take that kind of tone.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Sunday May 24 2015, @09:42PM
Some links to further reading on the topic, which AC will probably not like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation [wikipedia.org]
I love this quote:
"Should array indices start at 0 or 1? My compromise of 0.5 was rejected without, I thought, proper consideration." — Stan Kelly-Bootle
Note that if you click click click on links you'll eventually hit "Design by Committee", now that could be seen as a message from above WRT the present conversation...
(Score: 2) by Anne Nonymous on Monday May 25 2015, @01:18AM
I agree. If I want propaganda I can just go to mainstream news outlets. For the most part they lost any sense of neutrality decades ago.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fliptop on Sunday May 24 2015, @06:33PM
The stories I submit are rarely edited. The few that have been were changes I thought appropriate.
Ethanol-fueled's idea of providing a link to the original submission is interesting, though.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by zocalo on Sunday May 24 2015, @06:51PM
Also, we based the editors of the other site for not actually editing, yet now we're bashing the editors of this site for actually doing so? And I thought moderation was a thankless job... :)
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by looorg on Sunday May 24 2015, @06:35PM
How about having both? Show the edited one and have a link somewhere that shows what the actual submission looked liked. Then people that think something is fishy or wondering how and what the submission can find out.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Sunday May 24 2015, @07:09PM
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.
(Score: 5, Informative) by frojack on Sunday May 24 2015, @07:33PM
This whole incident started not with a TONE edit, but a factual edit, where the submitter of THIS post submitted another post which used an outright LIE, and attributed it to a liked story. In doing so, he libeled not only the company that everyone loves to hate, but also the author of the linked story, but putting words in that author's mouth.
The editor caught it too late, and the rest is history.
1) It is entirely possible to submit a totally biased viewpoint, and cite links that support that bias.
2) It is totally possible to separate the submitter's viewpoint from the that of the linked article.
3) There is no need to take a unbiased story, lie about what it saysput words into the mouth of TFA's authors.
But once a submitter has chosen to violate ALL of those tenants, it is extreme cowardice to then attack the editors who catch that deception, and accuse them of putting words in your mouth.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @09:10PM
If the editor caught the error before publishing - reject the submission and ask for rewrite, noting errors (other than spelling and grammer).
If the editor publishes it - then take it whole damn thing down. Post a place holder reporting the high level issue. Example: facts do not match, requesting a correction form the submitter. Once a replacement is made and accepted, then start a new, with a link to original "in error post" maybe.
Being hatchet men or a ghost writer to someone's else work (note copy-written by default in the US, so the original writer owns the work!), is just bad form. Watch the BBC "Boardchurch" to see that play out. A piece of work was written to support then the paper re-wrote it to teardown but still assigned same reporters the credit. (YES, putting words in the writer's mouth)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @11:55PM
The story submitter did not lie, he used a word to summarize the actions of MS.
E.g., A story describes a place where people stand around and bid on items called out by a man in the center of the room, and the item is sold to the highest bidder. It is perfectly reasonable for a story submitter to summarize the event as "an auction took place".
This is no different than summarizing MS threatening the UK to pull out unless it gets its way as extortion. I think "blackmail" was simply an incorrect word choice by the submitter. If the editor had caught this incorrect word choice, and replaced it with extortion, I bet the original submitter would have been OK, and it would have accurately summarized the actions of MS.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @10:11PM
There's no one right answer.
This is an incredibly naive thing to say, sometimes there is clear and objectively right answer.
Allowing flames and rants makes a place more stimulating, and more welcoming to people who have grievances.
And to people who have a very high opinion of themselves. A Venn diagram of self-important pricks and incredibly smart people would have a significant overlap on it.
Enforcing civility keeps things open to quiet conflict-avoidant people, and is likely to raise the quality of discussion.
I doubt that, it sounds like the kind of measure that would bring in those who can't take criticism. Quiet conflict-avoident people aren't necessarily emotional train-wrecks.
Furthermore, simply replacing one group with another doesn't automatically raise the quality of the discussion.
As long as the policy is transparent and the submitters are presented fairly
...which is the point that the author is making. It's literally in the first line:
Myself and other submitters have noticed that articles are being edited to change the tone and intent of our stories.
I don't know about you, but I don't feel that changing the intent of my message would be presenting me fairly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @11:48PM
Hacker News has self policing of comments to where it was initially a pleasant place to be, but over time there was a falseness that shone through. I don't like it when people lie, even if it is to keep me from becoming upset. That is the vibe at HN. I hope if Soylent goes in the same direction, it doesn't take it as far.
(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).
(Score: 2) by tomp on Sunday May 24 2015, @07:23PM
Who invoked Betteridge's law of headlines [wikipedia.org]?
If that was an editorial decision, then the answer is likely yes. Any other case and Betteridge has it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @07:38PM
NO CARRIER
(Score: 3, Funny) by captain normal on Sunday May 24 2015, @07:51PM
Just saying... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zb1qsVqjwg [youtube.com]
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 4, Informative) by frojack on Sunday May 24 2015, @07:59PM
Should the submissions be allowed to stand as a clear reflection of the community's intent,
The community does not intend that you can put words into the mouths of linked articles to support your personal biases.
We are barely tolerant or raging rant articles in the first place, but when you cite articles that don't say what you said they say, you become just noise.
If you can't fairly summarize a linked article, then why submit the link?
If all you want to do is post some ranting screed, use the Journal feature of Soylent News.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @10:02PM
If the article was as bad as you say, then reject it and do not rewrite it. Let the poster know what was wrong and move on. He can resubmit and review starts a fresh.
If you all make mistake and post something that should not have been posted per stated written policies, take it down and place a placeholder there. Allow poster to correct to the written policies and post it a new, with a repost link, if possible.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by hubie on Sunday May 24 2015, @10:31PM
This point goes largely unappreciated. Perhaps the Journal feature could be better publicized or make a little more prominent.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Appalbarry on Sunday May 24 2015, @08:45PM
If you submit copy to a publication with an editor you'll get edited. Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse.
"Real" writers understand this, and accept that some edits aren't what you would prefer. Volunteer or amateur editors just amplify things.
If you really feel that the editing is a problem you should step up and volunteer. Or go start your own web site.
All things considered the story editing here is reasonable, and happily free of the most egregious grammatical and spelling mistakes.
It may not be New York Times, but for a volunteer effort it's not bad.
And, and this is a BIG and, at least Soylent is prepared to step up and apologize if they do something really boneheaded - that's incredibly rare.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Sunday May 24 2015, @09:57PM
If you submit copy to a publication with an editor you'll get edited. Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse.
Usually for the better. At least professionally if I were a better editor than the editor, I'd be the editor. I've seen some pretty hideous peer output in college writing classes.
It would be very interesting to see the quality level of raw unedited submissions. Its hard to decide what to advise if we're in a vacuum about if we're any good or if we suck. My gut level feeling is we don't totally suck but we give editors enough gray hairs that they get in the habit of "fixing" things which is mostly excellent and occasionally a disaster, just like most other human manual labor.
It would be interesting to test for a week, do no editing at all other than the most trivial of filtering out spam.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @10:12PM
Real writers understand:
o That editor is there to help improve the quality of the work (spelling, grammar), not change its meaning or voice.
o That if the editor does not like the work, it is rejected. The writer can try again, once the rules / policies are in place so the writer understands what is wanted or can go to another editor / publisher to submit.
o Real editors do not rewriter another's work and make it something else and places the original author's name to it.
It is that last line, is the real trust that is between writers and editors.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Marand on Monday May 25 2015, @12:26AM
o That if the editor does not like the work, it is rejected. The writer can try again, once the rules / policies are in place so the writer understands what is wanted or can go to another editor / publisher to submit.
o Real editors do not rewriter another's work and make it something else and places the original author's name to it.
These are important, but I think the editors are trying to go the extra mile fixing things instead of rejecting outright, because there's no good way to notify the submitter that they were rejected, and why.
That means it's a technical problem, not a social one: allow notifications for rejection, supply a brief note about the rejection, and allow the submitter to resubmit with changes.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday May 25 2015, @01:08PM
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Tuesday May 26 2015, @06:36AM
o Separate their own opinions on the matter from the actual story being submitted and clearly define which is which.
You could also make a case for "leave personal opinions out of it and submit them as comments", but that's really down to the specific story - sometimes the opinion is needed to spur discussion, or actually *is* the intended topic of discussion.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @09:00PM
Free speech is free. Your worrying that you've said something wrong which is not actually what your worrying about 'wrong' is defined by the collective so your trying to appease an amorphous mass (us). Honestly don't worry it, I don't care, people who do tend to have issues with what free speech entails and they go ballistic attempting to 'correct' something which was never a problem. If you really want to be sorry for something, be sorry for the fact that you have all these people, all this talent, and yet your site is very limited in scope and operation.
At the moment we can 'comment' on stories, but we really could also develop, we could play games, we could share torrents or compress our files into torrents(in a more general sense you could offer online tools). We could collaborate on things, we could have real time discussion rather than reloading the page each time (I'm looking at your server people for their lack of ability to deal with async data via websocket).
Be sorry for being unambitious in your vision, goal, and structure.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @09:54PM
At the moment we can 'comment' on stories, but we really could also develop, we could play games, we could share torrents or compress our files into torrents(in a more general sense you could offer online tools). We could collaborate on things, we could have real time discussion rather than reloading the page each time (I'm looking at your server people for their lack of ability to deal with async data via websocket).
Sounds like unnecessary web 2.0 garbage.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday May 24 2015, @11:16PM
So..
* Play games - Facebook?
* Share torrents or compress our files into torrents - Warez?
* Real time discussion - IRC?
I think it boils down to a AOL/facebook like environment. There are already playgrounds for these kinds people.
The only point would be to develop a better discussion board where users interact with each others. But it's the same there, there's already others doing it good.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by rts008 on Monday May 25 2015, @01:07AM
NO!
I don't want or need another facebook wannabe, much less one duct-taped to a warez site.
I come here to read articles I may not ordinarily run across that may interest me, the be able to engage in interesting discussions related to that, or just lurk if I find it interesting, and don't know much about the subject.
I have no interest in coming here to code, collaborate, deal with torrents, or any of that other nonsense your pushing. That stuff has little or nothing to do with the whole idea and purpose of this site.
As for the 'real-time discussions', few of us have the time to spend actually doing that on yet another 'online circle-jerk'...jobs, families, you know, life, takes up most of our time. If you want real time discussions with someone, give them your ph#. If they are like-minded they will actually call you. There are a multitude of ways to hold real-time discussions with someone nowadays without forcing that format on everyone else.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @09:07PM
I've submitted stuff to this site and seen it slightly edited. This is fine, I had a scoop but didn't understand enough to write a detailed summary - this was improved upon by the edits made.
However I would like some indication that edits have been made. Not that interesting since I post anonymously, but for those that want to maintain a reputation it's nice for the reader to know that the message has been edited.
My main beef is not the editing, but the offtopic, non-tech news. This site uses categories but when something offtopic comes along, it's just shoved in a random one, e.g. this article about someone famous for TV stuff: https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=15/05/11/013228 [soylentnews.org]
It's categorized under "digital liberties".
Maybe just stick to the categories, and maybe don't publish articles like these if they don't fit the categories.
If you're still worried you need stuff like this to maintain visitors, put up a category for it! Maybe like Slashdot's "Idle" category. Also makes it easier to filter such articles out programatically.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @10:18PM
Soylent is not a tech news site [soylentnews.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 25 2015, @07:01PM
Looks like we need a non-tech category then.
Although honestly these non-tech articles make up such a tiny fraction of the whole of articles published, they feel really out of place and come across as a scream for attention.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @12:34AM
Maybe the summaries need to explain in more detail why certain news is tech-related. Or why it's newsworthy.
It's a bit like the summaries on /. which feature news about a certain company, or technology, without ever explaining what that company/technology is all about. Similarly, the TV personality articles on soylent have this same vibe, an arrogant "you should already know about this". Soylent and /. are US-centric, but it would help to give a bit more info for those who don't live there.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @10:36PM
We need quality content on the front page. Presumably, editors are chosen form their ability to recognize or create a readable and appealing summary. I've had a few edited and mostly for the better.
I consider my submissions as suggestions and anything I write is subject to editing. I don't care.
If I want my prose published verbatim, domain names and hosting are cheap enough. Blogs are free, even.
(Score: 2) by khchung on Monday May 25 2015, @06:02AM
We need quality content on the front page. Presumably, editors are chosen form their ability to recognize or create a readable and appealing summary.
Seconded. If editors do not edit, then we might just as well have an automated system.
Editors provide value by *editing* the submissions. Personally, I vote for more neutral/factual articles and let the comments hash out different viewpoints. I can find enough click-bait/flamebait/alarmist articles from other sources (such as the green site).
As someone suggested above, letting the submitted include comment with the submission is a good idea too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 25 2015, @09:04AM
Any other questions?
Considering that this service is provided for free.. is there a problem?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 25 2015, @12:12PM
I just bring the nuts.
what you make of 'em i don't care.
i know this.
if i'd want you to make something specifici wouldn't give 'em to you but make my own nut-blog.
(Score: 1) by pyg on Monday May 25 2015, @07:26PM
I just want to be on record saying that having read SN since its first incarnation as Chips-n-Dips, I think the SN editorial staff is the best ever (*cough*). Also, few closely read the article or link. We are here for the comments which when averaged are the "editor" correcting all factual issues as well as ethics, fashion, and/or culinary concerns which may not have been addressed in the OP.
No for reals, SN is awesome! The fact that meta-articles like this even show up is proof positive.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @08:24PM
I think it's ironic that this submission which proclaims the need to saveguard opinion diversity in submissions is closely followed by another submission on how multiculturalism has failed.