SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 19 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This discussion has been archived.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.
Would you people stop playing these stupid games?!?!?!!!!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @04:38AM
I liked the idea of putting the link to the original submission with the submitter's name.
juggs writes
The other idea of a link on the submissions page that has all the original submissions was good.
This is only if it is not too much extra trouble for the editors.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by zocalo on Friday May 29 2015, @08:25AM
With a little code wrangling it should be possible to automate the inclusion of a link to the original submission, and a little more to automate links to multiple concatenated submissions, so that's easy enough. Provided its a safe assumption that the editor that posted the story did any initial edits and any subsequent edits for tone by new editors are annotated in the story, that's more than enough of an audit trail for me to identify if anyone is being an ass or trying to push a particular viewpoint. I don't think we really need to see basic edits for stuff like spelling or grammar corrections made by editors other than acknowledgement of deliberately included errors with a "[sic]" at all - it just needlessly clutters up the story.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Friday May 29 2015, @02:42PM
Totally agree with you. An additional point I'd make, is that people are always going to bitch. The fact they are bitching doesn't necessarily mean anything is wrong because there are some people who will go to the ends of the earth to find something to complain about. Catering to such people is a losing proposition because their criticism isn't about any issue that actually needs addressing, it's about trying to get attention. I think that describes the large majority of complaints about editing here.
(Score: 2) by mrcoolbp on Friday May 29 2015, @05:13PM
True, I appreciate your sentiment, however we do try to listen to the community. It's a hard line to walk sometimes between listening to suggestions/complaints and simply getting the job done; we all work very hard (and will continue to strive) to maintain that balance.
(Score:1^½, Radical)
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Saturday May 30 2015, @02:10PM
Automated inclusion of original submission. Not really fussed where, but it doesn't need to be in your face.
Basic spelling/grammar errors fixed silently (it's vs its, their vs they're vs there, etc.)
Fixed links done with acknowledgement lest anyone think it's a change to OP's intent
Deliberately included typos, etc. indicated with "[sic]"
Significant edits for tone/language/content etc. acknowledged in the story as a heads up for those that care
Follow-up edits to the story after posting, especially those made by other editors, noted inline or at the end of the story
That keeps clutter to a minimum, gives a reasonable audit trail, and should provide enough accountability over who said what to placate most people. There will always be some that want more but, as I noted earlier, we should be focussed on discussing the topic of the submissions, not the worthiness of the submissions themselves. Implement a few simple "fixes" and wait - I'm pretty sure things will settle down and be forgotten about soon enough.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Drake_Edgewater on Friday May 29 2015, @06:06PM
I think the best place to put the link to the original submission is in the "Related links" box at the right side of the summary.