SoylentNews is people
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This discussion has been archived.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.
I came, I saw, I deleted all your files.
(Score: 2) by juggs on Saturday May 30 2015, @02:06AM
It probably is a localisation thing. I was also brought up in the North of England and "fettling" has no connotations other than polishing something to be the best that it can be.
Our aim for SN editorial activity is not to "editorialise" stories i.e. dramatise things or bias them one way or another, but to present a readable, balanced summary of the article that is linked. Personally, I think the editors do a great job doing that. The recent spate of unrest about the process kind of rocked my confidence though, perhaps we'd developed tunnel vision.
SN is nothing without its community behind it, that's how it began and I am adamant that is how it should proceed. Hence this META to get some feedback on how those outside the boiler room are finding things. You never know if you don't ask.