More
14
  1. No memes or images. Exceptions may be made in the case of images of an ongoing news story becoming available.
  2. User-edited titles are not allowed. Copy the headline directly and use it as the post title.
  3. News articles written over a month before posting must have the date of the article in the post title.
  4. No social media/blog/YouTube links. Exceptions may be made if information about an unfolding news story/crisis emerges on Twitter, for example, or if it is the official account of a news source.
  5. No paywalls. Use an archived link to post a paywalled article.
  6. Translate non-English articles.
  7. This is not a hard rule, but please be civil.

We had a small discussion about it ages ago with a little feedback but no rules were made. I took some of the feedback and made this rough draft.
1. No memes or images. Exceptions may be made in the case of images of an ongoing news story becoming available. 2. User-edited titles are not allowed. Copy the headline directly and use it as the post title. 3. News articles written over a month before posting must have the date of the article in the post title. 4. No social media/blog/YouTube links. Exceptions may be made if information about an unfolding news story/crisis emerges on Twitter, for example, or if it is the official account of a news source. 5. No paywalls. Use an archived link to post a paywalled article. 6. Translate non-English articles. 7. This is not a hard rule, but please be civil. We had a small discussion about it ages ago with a little feedback but no rules were made. I took some of the feedback and made this rough draft.

31 comments

[–] PMYA [OP] 2 points (+2|-0)

I can see where you're coming from, it is a tough issue to come up with a solution to. I think /u/Jidlaph summarised it quite well last year:

I think we would benefit from finding the middle ground between Reddit and Voat. Reddit moderators remove far too many posts and stick to the rules too much. Voat mods are either non existent or there are basically no rules left on the defaults because a certain "free speech" group took them away. I'm concerned that maybe the reddit/voat model of moderation doesn't adequately encourage quality curation, but I can't think of what a more appropriate alternative would look like.

Perhaps the solution is to have another sub for this sort of content. One similar example of this is /s/Punditry.
[–] Enfield 2 points (+2|-0)

The term Punditry may have a negative connotation and will isolate stories to an 'out of sight, out of mind' category.

I think the votes should decide the value of the news source.

Rule 4 as it is leans to the restrictive to me.

I hazard to guess Phuks users value a more open approach.
[–] PMYA [OP] 2 points (+2|-0)

I wasn't suggesting putting these posts in /s/punditry, that sub is for opinion pieces only, I was just using it as an example of a sub that contains posts that could very well appear on /s/news without a ruleset.

It is the hardest sub to come up with rules for, as there are so many variables, issues with measuring accuracy/authenticity with sources and people can be very invested in it for political reasons. Personally, I disagree with the idea that votes can vet news sources. Just because something is popular, it does not mean that it is relevant or correct, and in a lot of cases it can actually end up burying fact in favour of more convenient truths.
[–] AlkaiserSoze 2 points (+2|-0)

Ah, but where is the line drawn on opinion? If I go to a WaPo archive, I know that what I'm reading is likely glossed with a line layer of left-leaning bias. I do not believe there is an easy solution for this dillemma because it seems to me that a news source is only as credible as how many readers believe it is and, by extension, how heavy the observable bias is. I realize this is a flawed statement from a logical point of view but without a truly neutral independent fact checking service to vet each entry, we have no control sample to judge news sources against. Major news is just as susceptible to twisting of facts, false reports, and misreporting as smaller news outlets (aside from obvious shill sites). The only real difference is how much funding they each receive.

Would it be possible for an automated flair system to idenfity domain links? For example, WaPo could receive a Major/Left flair and Breibart could receive a Major/Right flair? As certain outlets prove themselves as reliable (or at least reasonable), they too would receive appropriate flair for their size/bias. I'm not sure if such an automated system is possible, I must confess, as I don't know anything about what features and functionality you possess here at Phuks.
©2016-2022 Phuks LLC. All Rights Reserved.
ToS | Privacy | Changelog | Canary | Donate | Bugs | License
Served by c7693d2284ae