Truemors
We just had a big debate among ourselves.
We had just learned that Amy Robertson had been fired by NBC. We could have updated the headline, and provided more exposure to wildstarz. I wanted to do that, but others did not.
It is NowPublic's stated policy to NOT change the content of any submitted story. We may flag it, but we don't edit it.
However, Actual News Guy thinks that headlines are another matter. What do you think?
at 08:11 on July 11th, 2007
Tough call. I can see some people taking offense to editing -if they are not used to it- and others that would welcome it.
If a headline needs clarity, I think just emailing the contributor with a suggestion to change it is the right thing to do. If they write back "I don't have time today, could you change it for me?" by all means, go for it.
If you want a story to get more exposure I almost want to say to just email the contributor. I think without a stated workflow that includes an editing process, some users could get upset.
I would say at minimum the following situations would allow it:
at 21:37 on July 11th, 2007
yes edit headlines
yes edit content also - then moved from public view till approved by the original
at 05:38 on July 12th, 2007
I agree that headlines should be editor-alterable. As for removing articles from public view pending approval, however, I disagree. Not every user is in fronto f a computer 24/7: if a user whose piece we change is offline for several hours (or days), then the rest of the NP community is deprived of that story, and the timeliness of the edit becomes moot.
at 15:02 on July 12th, 2007
Timeliness is moot anyway. By the time enough people see a story to make it to the front page (unless it is submitted during NP office hours when the eds can push it up) it is stale anyway (plus the fact that most postings are rehashed and not added to anyway and so is stale and ho-hum by default)
the point of corralling material for editorial reasons was discussed months ago and was a very desirable thing almost unanimously.
at 19:57 on August 11th, 2007
I have just started familiarizing myself with NowPublic today. I posted a few articles. I don't want anyone editing any part of my articles without discussing it openly in the comments related to the article in question.
I have a sense of ownership of the articles I posted. Any editing without my permission will discourage my further participation. I also have a sense of responsibility for and pride about the articles I posted. Editing suggestions that improve my effort are welcome. If you would like to pay me for my contributions or employee me, then you will own my submissions and you are free to edit and shape at will.
Once editors give themselves permission to shape the content provided by others, there is a risk that particular points of view will be favored and pushed, and even the risk of the appearance of bias when there is none. That seems contrary to what you are trying to achieve here. Again, I think any discussion of changes to an article should take place publicly.
If you think you can improve my work, and I am unavailable for discussion, then please feel free to post your own story.
at 20:04 on August 11th, 2007
there is a risk that particular points of view will be favored and pushed,
This happens anyway. If you want a story promoted to front page or popular, make sure you post it during Vancouver office hours.
at 20:57 on August 11th, 2007
what kinds of stories are favored during vancouver office hours?
at 21:09 on August 11th, 2007
all sorts, it just that is where the editors sit - and as they have 10x voting points on 'good stuff', then even one 'good stuff' can push you to the front page - if they mention it to each other in he office and your are 'stuffed' several times you have every chance of being a number one story - even if thyere have been only a few page views - and as you are number one, the page views follow - like a self fullfilling prophecy....it is one of the weaknesses of the system.
at 08:01 on August 13th, 2007
Re: certain points of view being favoured. I would hope that editors are conscientious about not doing that. I would hope that flags would be given on the basis of the quality of the story, no matter what the point of view. If exception is taken to what is being said, there is ample opportunity to make a comment, perhaps start a debate. One of the great positives of NowPublic is that it provides an opportunity for everyone to submit what they think is important. The only interference on the part of the editors, I believe, should be to remove pieces containing obscenity, hate-mongering, libelous material and other illegal or offensive elements.
Re: headlines. I believe these should be left as submitted UNLESS they are misleading. If they are misleading there are two options: change them to more accurately reflect the story; or return to submitter with the suggestion that they should do that themselves.
Re: editing typos, misspellings, etc. Only if there are so many they interfere with people being able to read the piece. English is not always the first language of submitters. If they wish to have their story corrected in terms of spelling, grammar, etc., fine. Otherwise let it go. The point is to get the story, not to have it perfect.
Re: 'stuffing' of stories to front page by editors. This really only applies to a very few stories and I see nothing wrong with taking advance of editors' knowledge and experience to make the NP first page as dynamic, interesting and relevant as possible.
As you can see, I have a few thoughts. Now if I can just get my math question right...
at 06:33 on August 14th, 2007
I tend to agree with Pcwick. Also, editing articles or headlines and pulling them until changes can be approved would interfere with the process that attracted most of us to NowPublic.
Personally, I feel I write with a specific flow and view point. Unless whomever wanted to make changes to my pieces could do so in a way that would mirror my approach, I wouldn't want my work altered. Phrasing is everything and rewrites could and may change the intent of the contributor.
At present, I would agree with editing typos or misspellings, only when, as stated by Ppeggy, they interfere the comprehension of the piece.
As Pcwick stated, comments can be used to address editing issues, including headlines. If the edits seem to be of a sensitive nature, the contributor could be e mailed.
at 08:51 on August 15th, 2007
Because of what Karen said, I do not favor editing the content itself.
Also, it's worth pointing out that Brian and I look back at all submissions since the end of the previous Noprth American work-day, hunting for both spam and good stuff... I begin work at a rather inhumane hour to make sure that we're up to speed!
at 12:06 on August 15th, 2007
I'm not a fan of editing content, but I think we've gone a little off the original point:
Is updating a headline or story acceptable?
For instance, if someone posts a story at 10am that says 10 people died in an earthquake downtown, but by 1pm we know it was actually 50 people. The original poster isn't anywhere around, would simply changing '10' to '50' or even adding it afterwards, maybe with a timestamp but still part of the original story, be appropriate?
We lose one of the biggest assets of being online, timeliness, if we aren't able to change the story.
Note that I'm specifically not talking about editing for content, phrasing or style, but simple accuracy.
Obviously I'm in favor of an approach like this, and at the very least editing headlines. However, editing headlines without the story can bring it's own problem. To use my own example:
Headline for earthquake reads: "10 killed in earthquake in Toronto." 5 hours later we write "50 Killed in earthquake in Toronto" but the story itself is still dated and reads 10.
Tricky question.