I think the point is actually whether or not something is of sufficient quality to publish?

One way to determine that is to only list articles that are published elsewhere, thereby giving the editorial responsibility to others.

The other way is to wield the hatchet yourself.

Your site, your call. I can see the logic behind either approach.

But I wish this discussion was not attached to the end of an article that I was hoping to get feedback on...

I think "your site, your call" sums up exactly what I'm trying not to do. If I wanted a blog, I'd be one of the million people out there with a blog, and I'm sure my opinions would be ignored just like everyone elses. What I have in mind for CogNews is a fair representation of state of affairs in cognitive science and a resource for the community. After all, I already know what my opinion is, so other people's opinions are much more interesting to me.

My only concern is the fact that this website the precedent for other people to express their opinions on the front page -- again leading to a chatboard (albeit, with the main subjects heavily moderated), not a news site.

And again, my question is do people want personal opinions of the CogNews readers on the front page, strict adherence to current events or some combination of the two?

• Re: What do the readers of CogNews want? by on Wednesday September 24, @01:07PM

  Would you feel different if Dr. Minsky was one of your readers, or Dr. Lenat, Dennett, etc? I am not picking on you, because I think you are making an important decision here, but I think you are drawing a line between those that read the articles on the site and those that might publish articles elsewhere. If so, then the criterion I mentioned before would be logical: only allow links to articles published elsewhere. Personally I don't want to read self advertisement, product plugs, lunacy, or pseudo-religious nonsense. Given free-rein, that is what would be published on the front page along with the items of quality. On the other hand, I would be very happy to see anything based in science and logic, whether or not it has been published elsewhere, or is a "mainstream" conformant piece. That takes discernment on your part. If it aint science, don't print it. I don't see alternatives other than either doing the screening yourself, or letting other publishers do it. If you are looking for a consensus opinion on what to do, then you have my vote of confidence to screen out the nonsense.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: What do the readers of CogNews want? by on Wednesday September 24, @01:46PM

  I agree with Ted. If you only allow links to articles published elsewhere you up the ante a bit for quality's sake, and would just have to guard against disguised advertisement.

  [ Reply to this ]