A New Approach to Moderation at Websleuths

[Fraize]

We've been thinking a lot about how to make Websleuths work better for you. It should be easier to navigate, friendlier to participate in, and freer to explore ideas without compromising the fact-based discussions you've come to expect from us. Websleuths prides itself for being the "adult-in-the-room," grounding discussions in verifiable facts rather than unconfirmed rumors. That hasn't changed.

What's Different Now​

Instead of deleting every post that breaks our rules, we're now using a flagging system. Flagged content is now blurred with a tooltip to inform you of the rule this content may have violated. We're giving you control whether or not you choose to review it.

Why the change? We want to allow a freer exchange of ideas while still maintaining our core belief that Websleuths remains fact-based. This approach lets us mark content that may be problematic while still allowing limited exploration of topics.

What the Flags Mean​

When you see a flag on a post, it means our team has identified an issue:

• Rumor - Information being discussed elsewhere but not confirmed by reliable sources. Speculation presented as possibility rather than fact.

I heard on Facebook that the sister of the suspect went to the victim's high school and was their girlfriend.

• No Source - Claims that need citation. Statements of fact without supporting evidence.

The suspect worked at the restaurant where the body was found.

• Unverified - Content from unapproved or unknown sources. Links to sites we can't vouch for.

Reported Ex-Husband Arrested in Connection to Ohio Dentist Double Murder

Police have finally arrested a suspect in Dr. Spencer Tepe and Monique Tepe's murders ... with officials taking a man named Michael McKee -- reportedly Monique's ex-husband -- into custody.

www.tmz.com

• Off-Topic - Content that strays from the case being discussed. Tangents, personal stories, general chatter.
  I've been to the town where the body was found. They have the best burritos there.

We may expand upon these flag types as situations arise.

The content isn't deleted. It's marked. You decide whether to read it. If the post is yours, and you wish to correct the post in order to remove the flag, you can reach out to our moderation team via the Report button and we'd be happy to assist you.

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.

We're Always Evolving​

We are constantly evolving our approach to providing Websleuths users with the best available information. This flagging system is one step in that direction, and we'll continue refining it based on how it works in practice.

Frequently Asked Questions​

Is this AI?
No. Our mods will still be acting on your reports and handling the flagging. There is no AI associated with this at all.

Will posts still get deleted?
Yes. When the only tool we have is to either delete or leave posts, that means there's no room for nuance or interpretation of our moderation activity. Consequently, more of our moderation can feel arbitrary or capricious. At least now we can recognize that not every violation of our rules warrants deletion. Short answer: we'll still delete posts that are flagrant violations of our rules.

Will we use flagging everywhere?
Not yet -- we're figuring out what kind of impact this new moderation technique has on our users and our moderators. We'll test it a few threads at a time, listen to feedback, and learn how well it works.

We Can Talk About It​

We are listening to your feedback! Change can feel uncomfortable, and I get that. If you have questions, concerns, or ideas about how this is working, my DMs are open. I mean that. I read everything, and I'd much rather have a real conversation with you than see concerns spiral in the forums.

We're building this together, and the best way to shape it is to talk it through.

 

[Eli9]

If a post is flagged in any way are we still allowed to discuss it?

 

[mickey2942]

Does this mean that Fox News, and all affiliates are still banned at Websleuths as a source?

 

[Izzylizzy]

This should solve most if not all the issues facing WS that may be preventing it from garnering new members who will remain here and keeping current members satisfied.

Waiting on reply to Eli9 to see if my comments hold water.

 

[Izzylizzy]

Does this mean that Fox News, and all affiliates are still banned at Websleuths as a source?

FOX affiliates are not banned, just FOX.

 

[Izzylizzy]

If a post is flagged in any way are we still allowed to discuss it?

If not threads could end up looking like one long- looooooong blur.

 

[Eli9]

If not threads could end up looking like one long- looooooong blur.

LOL. Too much work for the mods. I want my own blurring tooltip.

 

[Fraize]

A comprehensive site policy is being developed -- no ETA, but it is in the works.

While I wouldn't expect it to be too different from what we have now as far as what is allowed and what is not, it will have well-defined parameters.

For now, I appreciate your patience.

 

[Eli9]

A comprehensive site policy is being developed -- no ETA, but it is in the works.

While I wouldn't expect it to be too different from what we have now as far as what is allowed and what is not, it will have well-defined parameters.

For now, I appreciate your patience.

Fair enough and thanks for the heads up and the reply.

But do put consideration into the fact us Websleuthers are totally going to click on the blurred part on cases we follow cause we are nosey like that and it's beyond our self control.

 

[Fraize]

Fair enough and thanks for the heads up and the reply.

But do put consideration into the fact us Websleuthers are totally going to click on the blurred part on cases we follow cause we are nosey like that and it's beyond our self control.

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.

 

[sripey]

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

 

[Fraize]

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

Sincerely appreciate your feedback. You'll be glad to know that we fear what you fear, and we only wish to allow some flexibility in what should be an open conversation but not at the expense of what you value in Websleuths.

If it turns out we've made things too flexible, we'll tighten it up. If we're too tight, we'll relax a bit. The point being our systems only allowed for approval or deletion -- there was no in-between. There was no opportunity to find nuance as circumstances warrant.

I want you to reach out to me if anything's not working for you. Nothing will change if we can't talk about it.

 

[Fraize]

Victim blaming, conspiracy theories, rampant rumors from dubious news sources or individuals... <snip>

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.

 

[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?