A New Approach to Moderation at Websleuths

[MrsWatson]

I'm just going to be blunt. I think this is a horrible idea.

I appreciate WS because I don't have to wade though unmitigated BS from somebody's cousin's neighbor on Reddit or FB. If I wanted that experience, I'd go there.


I'm grateful that Fox News is banned. They lied and continue to lie and are hardly partisan in any way, including their crime coverage.



MOO

 

[Fraize]

I appreciate WS because I don't have to wade though unmitigated BS from somebody's cousin's neighbor on Reddit or FB.

You don't have to. That's the beauty of it.

 

[MrsWatson]

Will the blurred posts still be visible or will there be a way to not see those at all?

 

[Fraize]

Will the blurred posts still be visible or will there be a way to not see those at all?

Fantastic question! That is indeed something I can do! I am considering a setting so users who prefer not to see them at all can choose that for themselves.

 

[Izzylizzy]

Just to throw my two cents in, fwiw.

The reason I became a member of this site is because it's a refuge from the absolute garbage commodity that true crime has become on social media sites. Victim blaming, conspiracy theories, rampant rumors from dubious news sources or individuals, and just flat out meanness is the norm, not the exception, in most Facebook and Reddit true crime discussions. I sincerely appreciate and value the Webslueths ethos. Webslueths is an oasis from the nonsense that much of the internet has become.

I fear that some of the changes being proposed could water down the ingredients that make Webslueths so special to me.


Reed

There are quite a few lawyers/attorneys/journalists/investigators who have risen to the top and give exceptional coverage in print and on their YT channels to cases and trials yet according to the TOS here at WS have spent their time on DMs and still do.

WS needs a serious update on approved sources because many of the ones that are permitted here are archaic compared to what we now have available.
I among others have been asking for this with no avail.

 

[Elle*Bee]

Just to throw my two cents in, fwiw.

The reason I became a member of this site is because it's a refuge from the absolute garbage commodity that true crime has become on social media sites. Victim blaming, conspiracy theories, rampant rumors from dubious news sources or individuals, and just flat out meanness is the norm, not the exception, in most Facebook and Reddit true crime discussions. I sincerely appreciate and value the Webslueths ethos. Webslueths is an oasis from the nonsense that much of the internet has become.

I fear that some of the changes being proposed could water down the ingredients that make Webslueths so special to me.


Reed

This definitely a concern of mine, too, but I'll try to keep an open mind.

 

[Izzylizzy]

I hope that you do. The whole point is that we trust you to make your own decisions. What I can do is give you as much information about what you're about to click beforehand.

I'm confused.

So now a moderator/you would have to read the link, summarize it ,write out information about it then label it either "OT" "rumor" " not verified" etc. before re-posting it?

When would this process take place, after a link is posted?

 

[Fraize]

I'm confused.

So now a moderator/you would have to read the link, summarize it ,write out information about it then label it either "OT" "rumor" " not verified" before posting it?

When would this process take place after a link is posted?

The process itself doesn't change much:

1. A user posts content.
2. Another user reports offending content.
3. A moderator reviews the report.
4. The moderator determines if the post violates our rules. If it does, the post may get flagged, or it may get deleted.

There are no summaries being written, or any other editorial changes being made to users' posts. Flagging a post is about as difficult as it would be for a user to make some of their own post bold or italics.

 

[Warwick1991]

Thinking about this, one of my fears would be laxity with regard to copyright infringement, which I hope will still be a reason to have posts removed ASAP.

A number of years ago, I belonged to a forum that I really liked. Unfortunately, although the site manager repeatedly removed copyrighted content and issued warnings to the members, a news organization with an aggressive approach to copyright enforcement sued the forum for a copyright violation. The forum simply shut down and eventually had to seek a settlement. They did not have the money to defend themselves, even though the forum removed copyrighted content promptly.

I hope there's some analysis going on about removing posts that are potentially libelous.

 

[Fraize]

Thinking about this, one of my fears would be laxity with regard to copyright infringement, which I hope will still be a reason to have posts removed ASAP.

Copyright infringement is not on the list of rules which get flagged, so that won't change.

 

[Izzylizzy]

One limitation of a flagged post is that you cannot reply or like a flagged post. If you try to copy and paste it into a reply, you're prevented from doing so. The hope is that we slow down the propagation of rumors and unverified information. We can never stop it, but we don't wish to encourage it either.

Now I'm really confused because I don't see any value to WS using a flagging system where you can't reply to the post.
I thought you were giving us posters WS's take on the link and posters the option to read and/or reply to it or not.

These will be flagged rumors and unverified information that currently are not allowed here anyway so why give them space now?

 

[sripey]

This definitely a concern of mine, too, but I'll try to keep an open mind.

Oh me too, definitely. Webslueths, right now, is a pretty special place. I'd be willing to spend more of my money to keep it that way. I'll definitely keep an open mind to the coming changes.

 

[Izzylizzy]

The process itself doesn't change much:

1. A user posts content.
2. Another user reports offending content.
3. A moderator reviews the report.
4. The moderator determines if the post violates our rules. If it does, the post may get flagged, or it may get deleted.

There are no summaries being written, or any other editorial changes being made to users' posts. Flagging a post is about as difficult as it would be for a user to make some of their own post bold or italics.

Thank you, one confusion of mine settled.
Reported posts.

​

 

[Izzylizzy]

Yet here you say we're to proceed with "caution" on a flagged post but since we can't reply where does this "balanced discussion" we're now supposedly going to have take place?

And what is this?

"Our job is to give you the tools to make your own call."

One limitation of a flagged post is that you cannot reply or like a flagged post. If you try to copy and paste it into a reply, you're prevented from doing so. The hope is that we slow down the propagation of rumors and unverified
information. We can never stop it, but we don't wish to encourage it either

​

Why This Matters​

We believe you're capable of evaluating information for yourself. Our job is to give you the tools to make your own call. Flags tell you "proceed with caution" rather than removing the content entirely.

This is part of our ongoing effort to balance open discussion with the accuracy Websleuths is known for.

 

[Fraize]

I thought you were giving us posters WS's take on the link and posters the option to read and/or reply to it or not.

Read, yes. What we don't want is for people to propagate information which hasn't been verified, so replies are turned off for flagged posts until they can be validated or otherwise repaired.

For example, "I saw on TV that [insert some information which would normally be deleted because no-source was provided]." Before that post would be deleted. The poster may be correct, but because there's no source we wouldn't allow it.

Now we can flag the post instead. You can read it, but you have to explicitly click it. In doing so, you're saying that you understand that this is unverified, and that you're willing to accept that it may or may not be true. To fix the post, the user can report their own post and tell the mods "Here's a link to the story on the local news website." We can add the source to the post, lift the flag, and now anybody can read it and reply.

At least, that's how I hope it will work. We'll have to see it in action! Like I've said before, we'll adjust as necessary.

 

[Izzylizzy]

Read, yes. What we don't want is for people to propagate information which hasn't been verified, so replies are turned off for flagged posts until they can be validated or otherwise repaired.

For example, "I saw on TV that [insert some information which would normally be deleted because no-source was provided]." Before that post would be deleted. The poster may be correct, but because there's no source we wouldn't allow it.

Now we can flag the post instead. You can read it, but you have to explicitly click it. In doing so, you're saying that you understand that this is unverified, and that you're willing to accept that it may or may not be true. To fix the post, the

I think all this just puts a lot of unnecessary work on the moderators with little value in the end.
Revamp the approved list because there's a lot of valuable info out there and WS is way behind the 8 Ball.

Most of the deletions and TOs given here are for posting WS's unapproved sources which is the #1 complaint why members leave or new members don't stay.

Frazie, I do appreciate and thank you for what you've been doing to improve WS to be more inviting but there are times when keeping it simple is the best solution and I believe this is one of them.


This is news that wasn't in your original post and for me created much confusion.
", so replies are turned off for flagged posts until they can be validated or otherwise repaired."

 

[mickey2942]

I am tired of murderers being considered "victims". For months on end.

Example: Orrin and Orson West, we had to "tiptoe" around the obvious murderers for years. Toddlers don't just disappear.

 

[Fraize]

I think all this just puts a lot of unnecessary work on the moderators with little value in the end.

The word unnecessary implies it's a lot of work and / or it's not worth it. I've expended a lot of effort to make the act of flagging posts the easiest it can be. As for what value it brings, well, we'll just have to see, won't we!

 

[Ghostwheel]

I'm going to add what I see as some possible advantages, as a poster, not a moderator.

Currently rumors are not allowed. Sometimes those rumors have value. One came up today that was not harmful, could be construed as a theory except it wasn't presented as one, and might have been interesting to others. If flagged as rumor, then anyone who wanted to read it could do so. Anyone who did not could scroll on by. If someone quotes it before it gets flagged, the blurred will show in the quote and that can be reported.

Granted, it seems there could be entire conversations completely blurred out at some point if the original post isn't caught soon enough, but again, no one is forced to read it. If Fraize can make something where a user doesn't even have to see flagged content if they don't want to, better still.

A second advantage is leaving a post with an unknown source in place until someone who makes decisions can do enough research to find out if it's really OK. Post the link, alert your own post, it gets flagged. Then if someone wants to view the link while it's being decided on, they can. This is for sites that may be new or needs a decision if I understand correctly.

And a third, which is my favorite, anecdotes that are kind of off topic, and relate to a person's experience as to why they think like they do regarding some topic can be flagged and those of us who enjoy those stories can still read them.

A fourth is that when someone accidentally posts an opinion as fact. Instead of being deleted, they are flagged with "no source". Then a reader knows it's not necessarily a fact since there is no source and/or does not have to read it.

Still no victim blaming, still no doxxing, still no harassment, still no illegal content (including copyright infringement) or spam. I'm pretty sure no sleuthing family members or people who are not suspects, but someone will have to confirm.

This allows people to see why a post was flagged. Sometimes if it just gets deleted, they have no idea why because who remembers what you posted yesterday that might have been wrong out of the 54 posts you made?

I can definitely see where there could be issues, but I'll let everyone else report those.

 

[Gemmie]

This allows people to see why a post was flagged. Sometimes if it just gets deleted, they have no idea why because who remembers what you posted yesterday that might have been wrong out of the 54 posts you made?

SBMFF

I LOVE this part! I can't tell you how many people I've heard say they don't understand what they did wrong to get a post deleted, cuz they have no clue which post it was if they do a lot of posting. They then say "I can't stop doing something wrong if I have no idea what it was". Being able to view our flagged posts now gives us that ability to understand just what it was that we did wrong and can learn from it! LOVE IT!!!

I never have my posts deleted so not sure why this excites me so much.

SOURCE