I think of something like the Hugo awards, taken over several years ago by, effectively, Trumpists. A failsafe against such an event might make sense. Though honestly, we’re not exactly a homogonous group here as it is…
8 Likes
The way it is done at the NYTimes is they use a content management software that has data entry for the reporters. Each article then passes up the chain of editors and approvals, with the last check being the person who flips the switch to make it live to the site. Interestingly, all the big websites have one person who turns all the posts live. I worked for the company that makes the software they use to manage site content.
So, we might try a smaller version: have an editor group that reviews articles and a person that manages the site final content approval just to make sure the content is scheduled thoughtfully.
11 Likes
Is the next step to produce an initial group of editors - or at least a ‘editors working group’ - to thrash out the details of the process? (I agree with the above, btw, I’m detail-type, so I might well have been digging down into the detail).
I do think that as this is a potential draw to the site (of all the many kinds of people) - the moderatorial system, including complaint and access control should be solidly complete and in place before this feature ‘goes live’, but there’s no reason at all that the process for articles/editorial process couldn’t be developed in parallel with that. 
12 Likes
I think that is the next step. And probably a new thread.
Hold my beer. I’ll be right back…
6 Likes
Okay. Here we go;
5 Likes
Too long drank it.
6 Likes
‘ten second rule’, and all that.
7 Likes
That all sounds good - I’d still favour an (optional?) “I’d like to write about this, could you use it?” file. (Maybe even a drop-box of some kind?) as the difference between the NYT and us is that the NYT is (currently) more prestigious and so more likely to be able to pick and choose, and contributers submitting ‘on spec’, know they have take what answer they get.
We, on the other hand have less contributors (at first ;)) and it seems a shame not to be able to tell them we have a glut on the new Arduino, say, enabling them to either find a new angle, or produce something else that we can tell them that we’re more likely to publish.
Of course, it being optional, would still allow people to write that burning Magnus Opus on Arduinos, but then there more obviously do it at their own risk, made more explicit. 
[Oops, still completing post, please don’t reply yet.][All done, have at it!]
5 Likes
So all the disgruntled authors know they only have one person they need to shoot to exact revenge? I… don’t know how I feel about that. 
10 Likes
Actually I was thinking (rather unclearly) about how we can do without such a thing whilst still protecting ourselves.
But… making those things inviolate seems to be the whole point, I don’t know if any community function, distributed or no, could really replace that level of control and buck-stops-there-ness.
5 Likes
I was really surprised too. Seemed really manual and possibility of security risk is high.
5 Likes
It may be orthogonal to this specific discussion, but we should probably discuss at some point how copyright on submissions is going to be handled.
Assorted musings:
- Does [HMS] have exclusive copyright?
- Does the author have exclusive copyright?
- Does the author retain copyright while granting [HMS] non-exclusive, mutually-revocable license to use the work?
- What happens if an author no longer wants their work published on the site?
13 Likes
Not at all, there’s are all things we’ll need to sort out. There’s lots of detail and a whole jumble of discussion and these things are easy very to get lost/missed.
(Edit: And so I put a post in the other file.)
4 Likes
:twitch:
3 Likes
Old, old, habits die hard. As do nervous tics.
3 Likes
I’m all for that, as long as we can occasionally have a well-researched and foot-noted rant on Amazon’s horrible labor abuses.
14 Likes