Truemors
Look - I get that politics are divisive things and that a lot of news, particularly in the politics section is going to appeal to our baser natures. If we're to act as responsible filters of community content, however, we need to be able to see beyond those partisan blinders.
I don't want to call anyone out - I think that might be a bit crass - but I've already seen my editorial markings reversed, effectively dismissing my critique, without explanation or alteration.
Now I'll be the first to admit that I'm a bit of a leftist and I do know that I cast a more critical eye on stories and editorials that rub me the wrong way. It's human nature and there's not much I can do to avoid it.
But I don't mark those stories unfairly and I'd expect others to exercise the same restraint.
I recently marked a specific story as "Incomplete" because it contained an unsubstantiated opinion (bordering on blatent falsehood) which was presented as fact. I requested that the article be amended to reflect this and moderated appropriately. I later noted that the "incomplete" flag had been removed and that the article had been thus promoted to the front page.
You may not agree with my politics, but I would ask that we respect each others critiques. The removal of a flag should certainly warrant a comment explaining why the change was made and, moreover, it should be based upon the quality of journalism, not the character of opinion.
If this is going to work, monitors need to respect each other. We don't need petty editor wars on top of the daunting task of filtering all of this content.
at 09:29 on February 4th, 2007
I was also told that news monitors stories would get more exposer but none of my stories are hitting the front page or the sidebar. I noticed you can revoke a members "good" statis and I'm thinking "Houston we have a problem." Keep your political opinion OUT of the mix here. We have been asked to swallow our pride and mark
good stuff as such, even if we disagree which I have done. Save your political bias for the comment box please.
Also, I was under the impression that the "monitors" would have a private place to discuss ?s yet these comments are ending up on the front page in the shout outs. Not good for NP in my opinion.
at 10:30 on February 4th, 2007
In reply to #1 DIG THE HEAVY at 09:29 on February 4th, 2007
However difficult this process I am very enthusiastic about what we are learning in this new territory, and how it exposes the interplay between technology and relationships...
It is clear to me that some things that are both missing and redundant in our technology, and one of the things is the "Good Member" designation.
D the H's designation was indeed removed, and our server logs do not show when that happened.
I am not sure what to do about this - the obvious reflex would be for me to reclaim the privilege of making this decision.
But I am keen to hear your advice first.
As for the "Editor War", I'd like to hear from all active editors your sense of what we can do to isolate 'devisive political discourse' from interfering with what I believe is our noble cause of promoting the genre of civilian news-making as a form of civil discourse...
My own opinion - I think we need to revise our Editors Guide to emphasize the need for collegiality among us...
But it's more important to hear your opinions.
at 11:19 on February 4th, 2007
I think some have more time than others and are possibly overdoing what we've been asked to do here. My main purpose for having NP tabbed on my Firefox is to dig up the hidden news and while I'm digging, when something catches my eye, I scope it out and move on. To revoke someones good member statis is exactly the "elite editing" that keeps people in the dark ages. Very few at the top should have power to add good member statis and why in the world would you have the presence of mind to revoke someones good statis in the first place unless you were offended by one of there comments or posts. If this is the case ........[last thought kept inside mind]!@!#Woe, Woe get back in there.....
at 11:34 on February 4th, 2007
Also we were asked to keep news wanted to a minimum seeking big stories and important topics.
News
Wanted: Big stories are happening all around the globe every day. There
will be times when we invited specialized coverage from our
contributors - sometimes in conjunction with media partners of
NowPublic.
more info
It happens every day - sometimes every few minutes - that a story comes down the pike which deserves special promotion.
more info
Our contributors are always finding incredible stuff that makes us go wow. These go right to the top.
more info
When
our editors flag a report or image "Not Authentic," it means that there
are questions about the plausibility of the story, its origins, or the
independence of the author.
more info
Good stories are full of calories. When a story comes in that provokes more questions than it answers, we have a closer look.
more info
It
gets killed automatically. To prevent your story from being flagged as
spam, please make sure that stories about commercial products or
services are dealt with independently.
more info
at 11:52 on February 4th, 2007
I don't think any of the editors should revoke other editorial decisions. I don't think I have done that , and if so it was an keyboard/click error.
at 18:43 on February 5th, 2007
Incomplete is incomplete and spam is spam; surely we can all approach those categories objectively. As for "good stuff", I believe that once one editor decides that the stuff in question is good, then so shall it be. As for posting professional opinion, just make sure that the opinion in question is clearly noted as being just that. If looking over another poster's article or link, opinion-as-fact would warrant an "incomplete"; personally I try to elucidate why I mark an article in any particular way, as it's more personal and encourages legitimate follow-up.
at 23:45 on February 5th, 2007
what we are talking about is basic journalistic assessments of an opinion piece (so flagged by the author) or reporting, in which case there needs to be correct attribution to 'facts' or quotes - yes?
at 06:12 on February 6th, 2007
I........