2 ms·

I wonder how tough something like that would be to build? My first thought would be how to get that factualized content. Most journalists (popular ones anyway)

I wonder how tough something like that would be to build? My first thought would be how to get that factualized content. Most journalists (popular ones anyway) like to inject their own thoughts and opinions into pieces. It takes an extremely committed person with a clear set of rules to avoid doing that. Perhaps a way to do it would be to have news articles written by an individual, and then have a few others, or a community, edit it wiki-style, and essentially act like a collaberative editor. After it passes the editing phase, it appears on the website. Finding, empowering, and rewarding the best writers and editors would be really important. Also defining what that clear set of rules should be will be hard too, but not impossible. StackOverflow.com did a pretty good job with that. Things are kept on topic (with occassional jokes here and there), they empower those with a high level of karma (can edit, delete others' posts), and have a good set of simple rules to follow when submitting questions to the site: Avoid asking questions that are subjective, argumentative, or require extended discussion - http://stackoverflow.com/faq http://stackoverflow.com/faq I don't think an individual who is lacking time would find a news source thats purely factual boring. Instead it would make their lives easier and more efficient.

Andrenid 16y ago
Something like StackOverflow or HN is pretty much how I was thinking it would work, although with less emphasis on the voting. Voting would still be there, as a "quality score" of the article, but it would be time-based listings so it's still more like a news site. There would need to be a way to earn the right to be an editor, either by contributing in minor ways until your 'karma' has built up, or some other way, to stop too much "fluff" making it to the site. Although I guess the voting down of articles would still prevent that. Maybe a simple news-themed version of HN with "order by date & article score > 10" and throw in StackOverflow style editing.

Andrenid 16y ago

Something like StackOverflow or HN is pretty much how I was thinking it would work, although with less emphasis on the voting. Voting would still be there, as a "quality score" of the article, but it would be time-based listings so it's still more like a news site. There would need to be a way to earn the right to be an editor, either by contributing in minor ways until your 'karma' has built up, or some other way, to stop too much "fluff" making it to the site. Although I guess the voting down of articles would still prevent that. Maybe a simple news-themed version of HN with "order by date & article score > 10" and throw in StackOverflow style editing.