Editor's Note: A New Chapter for Linux Today Aug 10, 2001, 07 :23 UTC (163 Talkback[s]) (15605 reads) (Other stories by Michael Hall)
Yesterday was an important day for Linux Today, because it
started a dialogue that was clearly beginning too late. I spent
most of the day and a large part of the evening reading comments
on Linux Today and elsewhere, coming to grips with what we were
being told by readers.
What most probably do not realize is that I have been
effectively running LinuxToday for the past few weeks. Kevin
Reichard asked to be re-assigned within the company and he has
been phasing out his involvement in internet.com's Linux
channel. As of earlier this week, I took over the reins
completely.
The most disturbing trend I picked up as I followed reader
comments yesterday was the sense that Linux Today's quality has
been in decline over the past few months. Part of that sentiment
is based on a reduced story count. The general sense that the
site has subtly changed could only be given a negative tint by
claims that Linux Today has been "log-rolling" and excluding
other sites from its coverage for competitive reasons. I have to
address both, because they're key to issues of trust so many
readers brought up.
Times have been hard around the Web publishing industry.
Linux Today has struggled with those hard times the same as
everybody else. Our corporate parents set budgets for the site
that were too optimistic and valuable colleagues have been
released because there's been no way to sustain the staff sizes
with which we entered the year. Our bullpen has dwindled to
the point Linux Today is, by necessity, a largely one-editor operation.
The story count couldn't help but go down.
Intertwined with this decline in content are the accusations
that Linux Today has been unfairly exclusive of other sites for
competitive reasons. This is a hard, nuanced issue to address,
but it relates critically to the value Linux Today provides.
The site has a responsibility to the company that pays the
bills.
I believe in the quality of the content that comes from
around internet.com, and I have a general belief it is worth
inclusion on Linux Today. That's never been a hidden process:
when an internet.com site is either linked or its story re-used,
it's shown either in the site attribution or the writer's byline,
which invites the reader to assess whether to click through or
not based on his or her experience with the source.
The site has a responsibility to its readers.
My publication experience includes work on college
newspapers, small town weeklies, and company newsletters. I
understand full well that any source of news is viewed by its
audience as a community trust. When thousands of readers come
through your doors every day looking for news, they're making a
silent statement about the quality of your work, and they're
making an implicit declaration of trust.
Readers clearly find it abhorrent that Linux Today might
ignore good sources and stories out of over-competitive impulses.
The reputation of the site had been one of general inclusiveness
for years, and as we've tried to adjust to the market and the
state of reporting on Linux, we've changed. It's clear from
responses that we haven't found our stride.
Through all of this, we've believed we were looking for the
right balance. We will continue to reject some submissions and
fail to link to some stories. There are 'bot sites on the Web
that automate and harvest anything that passes the Linux 'grep
test,' and no one has ever believed they offer the ability to
provide what editors exercising good judgment can provide: a news
feed that provides timely, useful information.
I hope readers will stick around to see whether we've listened
well enough through this to justify renewed confidence in that
editorial judgement. I also hope readers understand that we'll
continue to listen, and that we'll respond to queries about
editorial decisions, as we always have, when they're directed to
us via e-mail.
Our talkbacks will continue to be moderated by Linux Today
staff. Other sites choose to allow unrestricted discussion, and
we respect their decision, but the conclusion we have reached
after examination of this issue is that when our talkbacks are
moderated dispassionately, readers find more value in them. As
the talkback policy already states, comments by readers that
contain profanity and personal attacks will be deleted. We will
continue to struggle with the issue of discerning what
constitutes useless and inflammatory provocation, but we believe
we provide the best forum possible when we provide moderation. We
also believe the majority of our readers will provide good speech
to counter the bad.
Anyone who has a suspicion that their comments were deleted
unfairly is always free to write editors@linuxtoday.com
and we will respond. We will respect the anonymity of readers
who choose to challenge our moderation.
We will also not permit the use of pseudonyms by staff members
in our talkbacks. Though debate continues on the acceptability
of the practice, that debate will invariably involve gray areas that
we believe are best avoided by forbidding the practice.
Because of the long-standing nature of this issue, I'll
maintain this editorial toward the top of our newsfeed for the
next day in order to allow full discussion among our
readers. I'll make myself available in our talkbacks as much as
other duties permit to answer direct queries pertinent to this
editorial. I believe this exchange will be just as valuable in
restoring trust between us as anything I could write.
