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?

  • Tangentism@lemmy.mlEnglish
    2·
    1 year ago

    For example, how do we pick the one to use? First one in? First one with lots of comments? First one from the list of “good” sources?

    Either of those is reasonable. I dont think tying it down to one specific criteria is productive. One post gets stickied and used with multiple sources added to it and updated.

    The main point is that it stops karma farming by posting/cross posting to as many subs as possible. (not that its happening yet here but when theres a few more exodus waves, that behaviour will start occurring)

    • GreatAlbatrossOPMAEnglish
      2·
      1 year ago

      Possibly something like:

      “If we receive an absolute flood of posts with the same story, we may chose one using a good source to sticky, and remove/lock the rest.”

      Which has the bonus of encouraging people to post the best source they can find.

      The biggest thing for me is setting expectations for people posting, so things don’t just leap out of the blue.

      And possibly a bit of collaboration between the communities to agree on a rough flowchart of where things should go. So if someone has clearly scattergunned, it gets removed from all but one.