I am all for leaving it up to the editors, but given that diary promotion is a less democratic process than subQ promotion (at least in theory), I'd like some thought to be put into creating guidelines for diary promotion.

I'll go with what port already has said on the subject.  If it's breaking news, looks like it's getting substantial comments, isn't spam or a horribly written and biased story, and maybe gets suggested to be promoted by a user then up it goes if the editor approves.

Having said all that, perhaps this should be promoted to the main page to get maximum feedback.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Having said all that, perhaps this should be promoted to the main page to get maximum feedback.

Maybe...back when we were first getting TnT going I remember a lot of complaints about running too many "meta" stories on the front page.  It might be nice if we could have a separate "meta" section, separate from the diaries, to talk about this sort of thing.

It might be nice if we could have a separate "meta" section, separate from the diaries, to talk about this sort of thing.

It would be nice if we had sections.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

I suggest that if the diary needs a rewrite, then copy it over rather than move it over. Responses to the slanted version will stay in the diary section. Replies to the more objective version will be on the front page.

- derumi (del-me)
"Bobby Fischer? Man, that guy is crazy!" - Mike Tyson

The way things are presented right now, I think pO's stated interpretation of the personal nature of diary entries (which is I think the way we currently present them) would preclude re-forming something we've already implicitly given a user ownership of. To say it more clearly, as they're presented now, I don't think it'd be right to change someone's "diary" all up. Now instituting the changes I suggested in my "Maybe" post to re-explain the site through a change in interface would probably change my view on that.

There were two slanted diaries promoted. I don't see this as a reason to curtail editorial power. I think right now we've got two editors who tend toward the conservative/libertarian side of our userbase and two who tend toward the liberal side of our userbase. While I'm confident in their ability to be objective, I think this is something that will balance itself out over time so long as we continue to have discussions like this.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

I don't see slanted left + slanted right equaling balance - slants of opposite sign don't cancel.

There is a deeper question of editorial policy here, as this doesn't really just apply to Diaries - we've just been lucky to have an excellent stable of contributors who tend to produce balanced, well written, well researched submissions that don't need much work.

Diary writers don't typically tend to self-edit in this way, and they shouldn't have to - after all, it's their diary.  And that presents a bit of a style mismatch when promotion to the front page, one I suggest be solved by either the author, or the editors, editing the submission to conform with whatever editorial policies the editors deem appropriate.

Now perhaps I am in the minority in thinking that striving for balance in the stories posted to our front page is a virtue - if I am, so be it, but I don't think I am incorrect in pointing out that this would be a departure from our origins.

Now perhaps I am in the minority in thinking that striving for balance in the stories posted to our front page is a virtue - if I am, so be it, but I don't think I am incorrect in pointing out that this would be a departure from our origins.

I think this is a good point - generally our write-ups are very even keeled (probably even more so than on Plastic, I'd say).  That said, I'm not completely sure that we should be afraid of posting more partisan writeups, as long as they're informative and/or well written.  I think they actually tend to generate more discussion (from both sides), and since I think the value added to a site like this comes as much from the discussions as from the write-ups, I can't help but see that as a good thing.  Perhaps such stories could be run on the front page, but with an "editorial" tag, both in the story tags section and in the title (much like we do with "[Breaking News]").  That would be a recognition that the article isn't written from a neutral point of view, while at the same time giving us somewhat more leeway to post such articles to the front page (since such a promotion would no longer come with the implication that the story is POV-neutral).  Does that seem like a possible compromise?

Perhaps such stories could be run on the front page, but with an "editorial" tag, both in the story tags section and in the title (much like we do with "[Breaking News]").  That would be a recognition that the article isn't written from a neutral point of view, while at the same time giving us somewhat more leeway to post such articles to the front page (since such a promotion would no longer come with the implication that the story is POV-neutral).

That's a great idea, bro. Short, sweet, and easy to implement.

Somewhere in my soul, there's always Rock -n- Roll... Joe Strummer

Labeling stories "Editorial" implies that the views expressed in other write-ups not labeled "Editorial" are views accepted or endorsed by Treesandthings.com, which they aren't.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

Labeling stories "Editorial" implies that the views expressed in other write-ups not labeled "Editorial" are views accepted or endorsed by Treesandthings.com, which they aren't.

I don't really think that's the case.  Indeed, I think it's probably the other way around - in a newspaper, for example, the editorial page is where the editors and/or newspaper's ownership clearly express their opinions about a subject (i.e. if a newspaper endorses a presidential candidate, it will do so on the editorial page).  Everything else is just neutral - no point of view.  In any case, I don't see why that would have to matter here, particularly if we add a section to the FAQ that clarifies what the editorial label means (i.e. if we say something like "By default stories posted to the Front Page section of Treesandthings.com are expected to have a neutral point of view.  Stories which take a strong stand on a subject but which are still well written may be posted to the Front Page section but tagged as Editorials.  In no way does this imply that Treesandthings.com, Inc. offers any endorsement of the viewpoints held in these stories.  All opinions published are solely those of the author.  Blah blah blah."

Courts have regularly found newspapers responsible for the information they print, "neutral" or not. On the other hand, courts have found that internet forums are not responsible for the actions and postings of their users, unless they expressly or implicitly endorse them.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

On the other hand, courts have found that internet forums are not responsible for the actions and postings of their users, unless they expressly or implicitly endorse them.

Well, what's the problem then?  I'm not sure how labelling some stories as editorials implies endorsement (particularly, implies endorsement of the non-editorial stories, as you suggested initially), particularly if we make it clear somewhere in our TOS or a FAQ or whatever.  All it does is categorize the stories in a particular way.

Doesn't much matter how you define editorial in the FAQ, it has meaning of it's own.  From Webster "a newspaper or magazine article that gives the opinions of the editors or publishers ; also : an expression of opinion that resembles such an article a television editorial".  I don't think you can avoid the impression of official endorsement by just explaining it away.

Well, how about "Opinion" then?  That's what newspapers call articles by columnists...I hight doubt, for example, that the Times endorses the opinions of David Brooks, but they still publish him (on the "Editorial" page, even).

I think you're interpreting my point a little backwards...it's not that we're endorsing the opinion/editorial pieces, it's that we'd be implicitly endorsing the things that aren't labeled opinion/editorial when the truth of the matter is that those too are solely the opinion of the submitter.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

that we'd be implicitly endorsing the things that aren't labeled opinion/editorial when the truth of the matter is that those too are solely the opinion of the submitter.

I just don't see that, at least not as a matter of law, where we might get in trouble about it.  If that's the case, then we're already implicitely endorsing everything that's on the front page, I think, just by the nature of the website (since we have "editors" that approve and promote the stories).