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: 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.