Moderation / Rules of "news" community?

From a combatting misinformation perspective:

If we're drafting rules here, I'd like to suggest a rule that the original article URL should be the one used for the post, even if it's to a paywalled source. It helps immensely in vetting sources without first having to click into an obfuscated archive link. I'm all for sidestepping paywalls, but I think it would be beneficial to have the archive link in the post body instead.

Part of my media literacy protocol is establishing that the source is trustworthy, and it gets annoying / tedious clicking into an archive link only to find out the source is "Jimbob's REEL TRUTH NEWZ".

I'm also on the fence about linking to YouTube (and similar) videos as news sources.

I would like fo the country to be added to the title (or as tags if that exits on lemmy), like [USA], [FR] or [World]. We are an international community so it'd help filter out the news of country you are not interested in.

I'm a mod at /truenews @reddit

It's hard to keep a healthy news sub because of so much polarization, and so much subpar stuff that's called "news". I can point to 2 successful examples that handled it differently.

At truenews https://www.reddit.com/r/truenews/We simply ask for quality sources. You can read the sidebar for the rules. Basically we demand that all news posts are actually from reputable news sources. We provide an explanation of what that means and tons of valid examples. Then we mod to remove non-valid sources, and work with posters to help them understand the rules. If a user is having trouble getting used to the rules, we ask them to stick to the 2 dozen recommended sources we provided.

Another example is neutralnews https://www.reddit.com/r/neutralnews/This is a very clean sub because it went a very strict way. Not only are all posts expected to be from valid sources, but any comment is expected to contribute something useful (so no jokes or venting), and all claims in comments have to be substantiated. This sub is very hard to moderate and it can also be hard on participants because so many comments get deleted until users get the hang of the rules. But the benefit is that it enables real discussion from any angle of politics because people are blocked from repeating party lines and memes, and instead have to argue their point with sources. Some of the most useful political discussions I've seen have happened in this sub, due to the requirement for good faith arguments with sources.

What do people think of a "journalistic integrity" rule? I know that's also subjective, but I'm trying to think of how to phrase a rule that is basically "don't post intentionally incendiary crap". I guess the rule could just be "don't post intentionally incendiary crap", with some examples of what that means and community opportunities to in some way indicate that an article is incendiary crap.

One of the rules I liked from the /r/games community was one of the rules you mentioned here: "Use the same titles as the article itself." I think all the rules you mentioned here are definitely good ground rules as well.

Personally, I would also like to see people adopting the body portion of Lemmy posts to summarize the article, or quote a meaty part of the article; but that could also be used for misleading purposes, so I'm not sure if that's a good idea without some level of oversight.

I would also say that a Twitter post is not news, but unfortunately a lot of politicians have not gotten that notice yet.

I don’t know but, Remember to... beehave … you know is like a bee but that does things like the queen orders …

Permanently Deleted