Objections to moderator edit behavior

Post Reply New Topic

Thread:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt114706.html

My objections are as follows:
1) Moderator has interjected opinion at the top of the post without designating himself as the author. As it is now, it is difficult to identify what was written by the OP and what was written by the moderator. Moderator did sign the line above the opinion and below the opinion indicating the web links were edited. This makes it seem like the moderator is only taking credit for the link edits and none of the commentary in the middle.

2) Moderator's opinion has nothing to do with the topic of the original post. This is a distraction and disservice to the OP.

3) Moderator attached link to an external web site to the original post. Said web site has nothing to do with the original topic.

4) Moderator has opinionated that the external web site referenced in the original post is "broken", thus discouraging WP users from checking out the site and deciding for themselves. The WP rules state that broken or harmful links may be removed, but that's not the behavior we're seeing from the moderator.


I have no problem with the moderators cleaning things up or fixing problems or enforcing the WP rules. But this seems to be a case of inappropriate editing of content.

Not being the one involved, I cannot speak to his decisions - but I will say that I agree with the actions that Lau took. His comments have nothing to do with the quality of information or the content of the thread, but posts an advisory message to the membership regarding the risks of allowing a site such permissions on your computer. I'm not sure what you are referring to regarding additional links or subject matter; both links in the OP went to articles regarding the validity or accuracy of McCarthy's son. Lastly, when a link/site is broken, it is usually a matter of being incorrectly linked. In no way did I interpret Lau's comment to apply to the authoring of said site, or to it's content. Perhaps I'm completely wrong, but from what I observe and can infer, I agree with Lau's action and would have done largely the same thing.


M.

I agree, I looked at it and I couldnt tell exaclty what Lau edited and what was original, but I totally understand why he did it. That makes me wonder what was from you and what was added by Lau, as it seems he didnt put "Lau" beside everything he edited. I would agree with why he edited the post, but maybe he should have made it more clear what he edited/added?

This is part of my point. I also object to the fact that off-topic spam was added "which I don't have under Linux (thank goodness), and would not dream of enabling (for an unknown site) under Windows". This is not a "security warning." This is unrelated spam. If the link is a risk under a particular OS (and doesn't work under another) it should be deleted. The moderator also added a link to Wikipedia which is totally unrelated to the thread, the links in question, and does not mention any security risks.

I thank the moderation team from protecting those of us on the site from spam, malicious links, and other foul elements of the internet. But editing a post with subjective information, additional non-related links, and not clearly indicating that the content was edited is wrong.

Actually, the point is valid... albeit tangential. Scripts are an issue for Windows users; not so much for Mac and Linux systems. The wikipedia link goes to an article explaining what Active Scripting is. I respect your opinion but disagree... and repeat that, in that particular instance, I would likely have acted in the same manner.


M.

For me as a reader, it's quite clear that the comments relate to the link, which was "wrapped" by Lau.

My objections to the moderating would be.

1) Use of the word "wrapped". What does that mean? After a brief web search, I'm thinking Lau means took a long link, and replaced it with shorter text.

2) Calling the first link broken. The link isn't broken. The issue is with the website, not the link. The added comments, though, not only, as I said, are clearly from Lau, but they provide explanation as to why the link wasn't given a descriptive label like the 2nd link.

Did you talk to the moderator in question about it, and perhaps suggest a compromise that might work for both sides?

"Broken" referred to the website, I think, not the link, but from the way he said it, it sounded like the link didn't work until he wrapped it?
It also didn't look to me like it had anything at all to do with content moderation--I thought it was a technical issue. Lau read the post, followed the link, and had a problem with it, so he fixed the link, but put in a note that there was a problem with the site as well. It seemed to me that he was simply being helpful.

In regaurds to whether or not Lau's editing changed the point of the original post or not, and whether or not it was confusing as to which part was added by Lau, I'm quite sure that a moderator editing a post dosn't usually make it uneditable by the original poster. So if the original poster feels the need to add a comment clarifying that the bit about the active scripting was added by Lau, he could do that.

I've had similar experiences... Whole paragraphs of some of my posts have disappeared, with no indication of who did it or why... admittedly, the times it happened I was invariably attempting humor using politically incorrect subject matter, but still... I think I deserve to know who edited my posts and why it was done...

methinks theres a mod about with terminally thin skin...