Tweet
Re: Official: DOW worse than 1929
The macros lessen the integrity of the site for me which is, otherwise, exemplary.
Originally posted by Lukester
View Post
Chris, you miss the point.
This is a rule in journalism, blogs, or any public discussion community. It is "not cool" to introduce editorial insertions into the comments of contributors, no matter how frivolous, without notifying these contributors that the editors wish to retain the privilege to do so.
In any kind of publishing, doing this without a clear disclaimer is a "no-no". Rajiv gets it. Not a whole lot of others appear to. Does not matter in the slightest how frivolous it may be. I am surprised iTulip, with it's depth and subtlety of understanding in practically all directions, feels it can dispense with this point. It matters not one bit that this is a "private club or community". This is a right which contributors should retain anywhere. You can set up a website where you reserve reproduction rights to any contributor content, but you can't "summarily edit" any of that content without their permission - or if you do reserve this right, you need to make that very clear in a further disclaimer. Nowhere on iTulip does it say "we reserve the right to change words in your posts at our discretion", now does it?
I'm actually less concerned about iTulip doing that, than I am at the lethargic response to this practice on the part of all of it's readers. If you submit an comment or letter to your local newspaper, and you see it published the next day but with "some words changed", what do you conclude as to the propriety of that? Do you take that lethargically too? iTulip don't seem to "get" this point, which is quite surprising. Word to iTulip's editors. You don't "own" our comments outright. The exchange of views (particularly with paying subscribers) is a two way street, where certain lines are not crossed. So the correct "terms of use" everywhere is, that you do not introduce macros, regardless of their frivolity, which change subscriber comments in any way, without A) clearing it with them, and B) posting a disclaimer on "terms of use" clearly on the website.
Most particularly, you don't introduce macros such as "schiffty" when contributors are referring to a well known stock broker, which cast even the most jocular slur upon that professional. Why? Because by doing so, you potentially render your own contributors liable to a complaint from that party, while your contributors may not have intended to cast any slur upon him. By doing this, iTulip has exposed it's contributors to a civil risk which the contributors were not made aware of beforehand. This is a perfect illustration of the line that gets crossed in propriety, when contributor comments are "altered" by what looks like a harmless macro on a forum such as this. It's like a man groping a woman on a public bus. Everyone around him is staring at him and saying "in civilized community you can't do that with impunity", and the man just stares back blankly and says "why not"? Get the point?
This is a rule in journalism, blogs, or any public discussion community. It is "not cool" to introduce editorial insertions into the comments of contributors, no matter how frivolous, without notifying these contributors that the editors wish to retain the privilege to do so.
In any kind of publishing, doing this without a clear disclaimer is a "no-no". Rajiv gets it. Not a whole lot of others appear to. Does not matter in the slightest how frivolous it may be. I am surprised iTulip, with it's depth and subtlety of understanding in practically all directions, feels it can dispense with this point. It matters not one bit that this is a "private club or community". This is a right which contributors should retain anywhere. You can set up a website where you reserve reproduction rights to any contributor content, but you can't "summarily edit" any of that content without their permission - or if you do reserve this right, you need to make that very clear in a further disclaimer. Nowhere on iTulip does it say "we reserve the right to change words in your posts at our discretion", now does it?
I'm actually less concerned about iTulip doing that, than I am at the lethargic response to this practice on the part of all of it's readers. If you submit an comment or letter to your local newspaper, and you see it published the next day but with "some words changed", what do you conclude as to the propriety of that? Do you take that lethargically too? iTulip don't seem to "get" this point, which is quite surprising. Word to iTulip's editors. You don't "own" our comments outright. The exchange of views (particularly with paying subscribers) is a two way street, where certain lines are not crossed. So the correct "terms of use" everywhere is, that you do not introduce macros, regardless of their frivolity, which change subscriber comments in any way, without A) clearing it with them, and B) posting a disclaimer on "terms of use" clearly on the website.
Most particularly, you don't introduce macros such as "schiffty" when contributors are referring to a well known stock broker, which cast even the most jocular slur upon that professional. Why? Because by doing so, you potentially render your own contributors liable to a complaint from that party, while your contributors may not have intended to cast any slur upon him. By doing this, iTulip has exposed it's contributors to a civil risk which the contributors were not made aware of beforehand. This is a perfect illustration of the line that gets crossed in propriety, when contributor comments are "altered" by what looks like a harmless macro on a forum such as this. It's like a man groping a woman on a public bus. Everyone around him is staring at him and saying "in civilized community you can't do that with impunity", and the man just stares back blankly and says "why not"? Get the point?
Comment