Happy Friday :)

I thought I might get a bit of feedback from everyone here on what the guidelines for posting in the news-related subs should be.

So far, all I’ve put in the sidebar is that things should be text post, or a link to a reputable source. Everyone seems happy for now, which is great. But I’m sure eventually this will become a discussion, so good to get things in the ground ahead of time.

Edit: This post was supposed to go on !ukpolitics, but I got the community wrong. There isn’t anything in the sidebar of !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk right now 🙃

Sources

As my history teacher would drill into me, Primary, Secondary, Reliability, Bias.
These might be a good way to work out which sources we’d like to see here, and what constitutes “reputable”. Or possibly a flow of which source to prefer (for example, if it’s only posted on some random site, perhaps see if BBC/Sky/Guardian/Reuters/Independent/FT/Telegraph have a similar article before posting) We could also do a breakdown of which sources are good/bad for what, and why.

This chart gives a fairly good way to classify sources. Apologies, there are a lot of non-uk sources in there.

Type of content

Links to sensible, sourced news sites, obviously a good thing.

Imho, text post discussions with clear titles to start sensible discussions are a good thing to have. Engagement-bait, not so much.

Editorial content, maybe, so long as it’s clear what it is.

Primary sources, where appropriate seem sensible.
Twitter, Mastodon, et al. Youtube, I’m less keen on. Though thoughts are appreciated.

Link aggregation sites, no.
Follow the links through to their source if you like, and post that.

Titles

Try not to editorialise. If the original title is a little wordy, try to keep in the spirit of the original when editing.

Multiple posts

When news breaks, it’s exciting, and everyone wants to post.
This can mean discussions getting fragmented.
If possible, have a scan of the community first to make sure it’s not already here, and if it is, try to only post when the additional source adds something new. Honestly, while we’re this size, I’m happy to let the voting system let things rise and fall. This might have to change down the line. Possibly linked to source preference?

  • ᴇᴍᴘᴇʀᴏʀ 帝A
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Perhaps this could be a page for big things, and a sidebar that directs regular posts to the correct community?

    Works for me. It’ll be a bit messy until we get tools to move posts between communities. Then this community will likely need a bit of monitoring. Until then you have to rely on everyone’s best judgement. Uh oh!

    (and maybe gives a niche for someone to run a sensationalist news community for the rest!)

    For tabloid gossip and the like:

    c/muckracking

    For funny or odd news stories:

    c/andfinally

    I am quite tickled by the latter, so will start it later.

    • GreatAlbatrossOPMA
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Haha, precisely. While we’re a small community, people are pretty sensible, and you can politely nudge people who make mistakes.

      When places get bigger, you need clear rules, or arseholes will camp out in the grey area, and throttle you with loopholes.

      I kinda like the idea of an area for less serious/crap news. As it doesn’t shut it out entirely, and lets people discuss it. But also means you’re not having “general election in 10 minutes” compete with “no longer prince does something in america”

      • ᴇᴍᴘᴇʀᴏʀ 帝A
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        “Harry’s troubles, part 86” is clearly something people like talking about and that’s fine if it’s elsewhere and I don’t have to read it.