Re: [tlug] Post my article on tlug.jp?: Who's view does it represent?

["Josh Glover" <jmglov@example.com>]

On 30/07/07, Edward Middleton <emiddleton@example.com> wrote:

> A standard doesn't have to be subjective but it does tend to end up
> being subjective when only one person makes the decision.

Editing by committee tends to produce results just as heinous as
design or writing by committee.

Committee decisions are subjective as well, just a subjective
compromise that generally results in a shittier outcome than one
strong-willed by talented editor.

A writer has a "voice", which one talented editor can bring out and
sharpen (just as a talented sound engineer can get that drum solo to
"sparkle and shine"). I feel a committee would muddy the waters and do
more harm than good.

One Editor in Chief, please. And I think it is reasonable to require
writing samples (or better yet, editorial samples) from the person who
volunteers before turning the reins over to them.

> If we are talking about an editorial article hosted on the main pages as
> appose to the wiki then I think we do want some minimum standard.  The
> articles will, for the most part, stay in its original form and as such
> should meet a reasonable standard on submission.

I agree with this.

> The main pages are our introduction for the club.  I think they should
> represent our best.

Yes. We want to keep the signal to noise ratio favourable.

Keith's approach is ideal for the wiki, where anyone can submit an
article and anyone else can edit it. Then, we hope that the good pages
will bubble up in PageRank.

But our "featured articles" should be marquee shit, with a pretty high
quality bar (which I think Dave's article clears, just to be explicit
on this point).

-- 
Cheers,
Josh