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 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.)