SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Let's talk about content.
I don't think you'll have much argument from the Editors that we aren't experts in Scientific matters. That's not the point of Soylentnews - we aren't going to be able to vet the next "Cold Fusion" or disprove the existence of Dark matter. If you are looking for that kind of editorial control I'm afraid you are reading the wrong website.
Our part in this is to bring these articles to the table so they can be discussed. The source of the material should hardly matter as long as the article itself is well written and is not a flat advertisement for a specific product. I have seen a number of AC who don't like content from site "x" or "y" and expect us to get all of our Science from Science Daily. It isn't going to happen, and shouldn't be a concern. Submitters are getting information from wherever; that is not something Editorial should be vetting; the quality of the original should be vetted by the submitter. (Editorial has to check that the links exists; and warn about pay walls)
Most Science articles are typically results of studies, and as such it should be expected that the results will be re-interpreted over time when held up against new data. That's how science works. It should surprise no one to read about "proof" of "X" one day followed by a article disproving, or throwing doubt on the original article. If you are thinking that we're getting redundant; move on to the next article; or submit something new.
It shouldn't be consider verboten to link a site for a product's manufacturer - if the article is clearly about the existence of (Science based product that didn't previously exist). What is not allowed are articles that clearly states that "you should buy "X"" - however thinly veiled.
That all said we should try to put together a list of reputable sites that we can use to source material from - in hope that we will see some fresh content submitted by members here who have not submitted before.
So where should we look? What sites are pure garbage and what do you hold up to a gold standard?
What should be accepted as content, and what do we reject as advertisements, conjecture, or a bad source?
(Score: 2) by Open4D on Tuesday October 28 2014, @02:46PM
Listing the Daily Mail alongside a satire website (the Onion) is ridiculous. All newspapers / news websites are capable of misleading articles.
Regarding the major UK national newspapers, I would estimate that actually the Mirror is worst, with the Express at #2, the Mail at #3, the Sun at #4 (mainly because it often obviously doesn't take itself seriously), the Telegraph at #5. The Times, Guardian and Independent would be least bad. Of those I read far more of the Guardian, but I still sometimes finish an article and conclude that the writer & editor(s) have set out to deliberately mislead.