#editorial | Logs for 2020-03-01

« return
[00:54:06] -!- EWBtCiaST [EWBtCiaST!~EWBtCiaST@199.229.rzr.xsk] has joined #editorial
[01:24:53] -!- AzumaHazuki [AzumaHazuki!~hazuki@the.end.of.time] has joined #editorial
[03:43:47] <Bytram> =submit https://www.sciencedaily.com
[03:43:49] <exec> └─ 13A dam right across the North Sea: A defense against climate change, but primarily a warning -- ScienceDaily
[03:43:49] <systemd> Submitting "A dam right across the North Sea: A defense against climate change, but primarily a warning"...
[03:44:11] <systemd> ✓ Sub-ccess! "03A Dam Right Across the North Sea: A Defense Against Climate Change, but Primarily a Warning" (7 paragraphs) -> https://soylentnews.org
[03:44:54] <Bytram> =submit https://www.sciencedaily.com
[03:44:55] <systemd> Submitting "Printer toner linked to genetic changes, health risks in new study"...
[03:44:56] <exec> └─ 13Printer toner linked to genetic changes, health risks in new study -- ScienceDaily
[03:45:17] <systemd> ✓ Sub-ccess! "03Printer Toner Linked to Genetic Changes, Health Risks in New Study" (17 paragraphs) -> https://soylentnews.org
[03:49:05] <Bytram> =submit from the playing-hockey-with-tonsils dept.= https://phys.org
[03:49:06] <exec> └─ 13Study reveals link between income inequality and French kissing
[03:49:07] <systemd> Submitting "Study reveals link between income inequality and French kissing"...
[03:49:28] <systemd> ✓ Sub-ccess! "03Study Reveals Link Between Income Inequality and French Kissing" (18 paragraphs) -> https://soylentnews.org
[03:55:07] <Bytram> =submit https://phys.org
[03:55:08] <exec> └─ 13How a seasonal snarl-up in the mid-1500s gave us our strange rules for leap years
[03:55:08] <systemd> Submitting "How a seasonal snarl-up in the mid-1500s gave us our strange rules for leap years"...
[03:55:30] <systemd> ✓ Sub-ccess! "03How a Seasonal Snarl-up in the Mid-1500s Gave Us Our Strange Rules for Leap Years" (40 paragraphs) -> https://soylentnews.org
[06:32:19] -!- AzumaHazuki has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
[08:59:40] <janrinok> Bytram, in addition to the words I submitted yesterday regarding the non-use of video material as a source for a submission, I believe that we ought to make it clear that we will not accept any social media (Twitter, FaceBook, TikTok etc) as the prime source either. I see no problems linking to a specific quote from social media if it is germane to the discussion e.g "The CEO of Microsoft later tweeted that they were Open Sourcing
[08:59:40] <janrinok> all of the Windows code [link to quote]" sort of thing.
[12:56:53] <Bytram> janrinok: nod nod; we have several times in the past referenced, for example, tweets. That said, IIRC, that had been only as to how the tweets were a part of a linked article. I would certainly agree that using *just* a tweet (or acebook post or...) as the source of a story warrants... corroboration from some other source. *Anybody* can post *anything* on social media, so its validity warrants closer scrutiny and verification.
[12:56:53] <Bytram> Excellent point!
[17:20:00] <Fnord666> janrinok, bytram, I agree. There is basically no fact checking on social media platforms and none of it can be considered actually true. I would also say that "retweets" etc. do not count as secondary sources.
[17:21:59] <Fnord666> A corroborated source to me would be a tweet, from Microsoft's corporate account, saying that they are open sourcing Windows that also contained a link to their corporate press release about said event.
[17:48:17] <janrinok> ... that phrase rings a bell ;)
[19:57:24] <carny> so if the president of a country appears on tv and makes an official statement that can't be the primary source for a sub?
[20:35:56] <chromas> There will be articles written about it
[20:36:55] <chromas> "Cheeto Demonstrates Support of White Supremecy by Farting on National Television"
[20:45:19] <carny> ok so what about when pewdiepie makes another video announcement and 50 million ppl are talking about it?
[20:46:13] <carny> instead of linking the source subs have to link to somebody else talking about the source 2nd hand?
[20:47:46] <chromas> That's how almost all of our articles are now
[20:49:15] <chromas> Someone does a science, someone else writes a narticle, someone else's copy/pastas it to a sub, then we cut out most of it and pretend like readers are totally gonna click through to the article even though we know they're not even reading the summary
[20:52:42] <chromas> then everyne shitposts about how systemd is made by white supremacists or whatever
[21:10:07] <Fnord666> lol
[21:10:18] <Fnord666> sad but true
[22:00:13] <TheMightyBuzzard> erm, aren't we supposed to be welcoming to original content? i mean if they add some actual value to the annoying source material like collecting several annoying primary sources and maybe transcribing some of the video?
[22:03:50] <chromas> It's true. We used to want OC, but it's almost always bot subs, so maybe we forgot
[22:04:36] <chromas> The bots changed our minds without us even noticing.
[22:09:34] <TheMightyBuzzard> bot lives matter
[22:09:51] <MrPlow> das right!
[22:11:33] <Hephaestus> Damn right! You humans are always telling us to #submit