On Sat, 3 Apr 2004, Jane Lyle wrote:
> Further to the discussion of copyright and privacy, I'm wondering what
> other list owners think about a list owner who frequently puts subscribers
> on Review and then edits their posts before forwarding them to the list.
> She also alters the posts stored in the archives. I don't mean that she
> goes in there to delete misdirected posts or near-duplicates; in some
> cases she is altering the content of what the poster said by deleting text
> or moving it around, with no notice that she has done so and that the post
> isn't as it was originally sent. This is a professional list, and her
> level of interference makes me extremely uncomfortable.

Depends, I would say, on exactly what she does.  Deleting or moving what
content?  Quoting from a prior posting?  Original material?  Exactly what
and how?

I edit postings before distribution.  I get rid of excess quoting of the
prior; may move position of the quote from the end to the beginning (nothing
may follow the poster's sig); ad an attribution to a quote if the poster
hasn't done so and it won't be obvious, due to many people posting in the
thread, who is being quoted without that (if in doubt, I check the
archives); etc.

I also add a signature if lacking, or correct to the proper form with
address (list rule: all postings must be signed with at least full true
name and email address), delete fancy borders above and below sigs, delete
all tag lines other than "my opinion, not my employer's," delete blurbs
tacked on by commercial sites (like the Yahoo tags), get rid of extraneous
"blank" lines, convert Tabs to spaces (if the tabs aren't so defined), etc.
But I don't delete anything original, except every once in a while when
someone tries to slip in an extraneous political or religious comment in an
otherwise legit posting (usually a sentence or two at the end; more than
that I return it and ask that it be rewritten, or flat reject it), and I
don't rearrange the order of what is said. (Exception: press releases,
meeting/conference/workshop announcements, and job postings)

I rewrite Subject: lines when they are too long, unclear (read the text
of the posting), or look like maybe spam Subject:s (or will to the
filters).  I banned "Help!" as a subject line many years ago, for all
of my lists.

I sometimes do editorial insertions with [ ] when it is not clear to whom
a poster is replying and there is nothing quoted; e.g.

"You are wrong when you say it is X.  If you examine Z you will see
that the case is Y."      becomes:

"You [John Doe] are wrong when you say it is X.  If you examine Z you will
see that the case is Y."

And every once in a while I will insert, at the beginning or the end, an
explanatory comment, bracketed with [     d.w.] or  [       Douglas].

Those are various things I look at in editing before distribution, and
doesn't include all.  However, all subscribers' (and nonsubscribers')
posts are treated the same way, no exceptions (save oversights).  I don't
select certain subscribers whose postings must be approved; all postings
must be approved and are subject to editing, as above.

Once distributed, I don't mess with them in the archives save to correct
a technical glitch, or maybe change a subject line a bit to bring it
into conformity with the rest of the thread (a misspelling I overlooked,
lacks a Re:, things of that sort).

My editing, before or after distribution, is all toward making the lists as
easy to read, the threads as easy to follow, as possible.  What people
actually say, as long as it is germane to the list and doesn't get out of
hand, is their business (if it isn't remotely pertinent, or is grossly out
of hand, it isn't distributed).

More detail on what this listowner actually does is needed.  Have you
asked for an explanation?  Is my memory faulty, or did you not bring this
up the last time this sort of thing was discussed on LSTOWN-L?

Douglas Winship     [log in to unmask]