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: 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).