My thread on the head of the FAA helping to suppress whistleblowers when he worked at Delta no longer appears to be up. Why was it removed?

penguins wrote:

My thread on the head of the FAA helping to suppress whistleblowers when he worked at Delta no longer appears to be up. Why was it removed?

Links to paywalled articles require you to include a complete summary of the article in your own words. You can include fair use quotes to cover some of it, but it requires a full summary. Users shouldn't be expected to have to pay for access to a news site in order to get a complete understanding of the story. We considered banning the use of paywalled articles outright, but this was the compromise. Too many users were including selective information with no way for many other users to fact check them.

Rule 2b. Use of Paywalled Content
1. It is always preferred that users post sources that are not behind paywalls. Since this is not always possible, users posting content from paywalled sources must provide detailed summaries of the article contents. Users should be able to get a proper understanding of the article without being forced to pay for the content to participate.
2. Posts or threads linked to a paywalled source lacking an adequate or accurate summary are subject to deletion.
3. Users attempting to utilize paywalled content to create a misleading or flamebait topic may be warned or banned.

Our recommendation is to link to free sources wherever possible. If that's not possible, then please just be sure to include a complete set of facts for users to discuss.

This is not an attempt to prevent the discussion from occurring. It is an important story that should be discussed, it's just important that all the facts be available for users to draw their own conclusions.

✈️ atcsundevil

atcsundevil wrote:

Rule 2b. Use of Paywalled Content
1. It is always preferred that users post sources that are not behind paywalls. Since this is not always possible, users posting content from paywalled sources must provide detailed summaries of the article contents. Users should be able to get a proper understanding of the article without being forced to pay for the content to participate.
2. Posts or threads linked to a paywalled source lacking an adequate or accurate summary are subject to deletion.
3. Users attempting to utilize paywalled content to create a misleading or flamebait topic may be warned or banned.

Our recommendation is to link to free sources wherever possible. If that's not possible, then please just be sure to include a complete set of facts for users to discuss.

This is not an attempt to prevent the discussion from occurring. It is an important story that should be discussed, it's just important that all the facts be available for users to draw their own conclusions.

✈️ atcsundevil

Interesting rule, posting verbatim is copyright violation and writing own summary could be construed as fudging facts.

dtw2hyd wrote:

Interesting rule, posting verbatim is copyright violation and writing own summary could be construed as fudging facts.

It's only fudging the facts if you fudge the facts. Any reasonably intelligent person can read a sentence and formulate it into their own words coveying the same information. The consensus was actually to ban paywalled articles outright, but we chose to make a compromise with this rule. We've received an increasing number of complaints about it over the years, so we need to do something. We can't allow people to copy/paste the entire article for obvious reasons, but plenty of threads created on this site contain summaries of articles, even if the articles are freely available. Just look at most of the things LAXIntl posts — he always has pretty extensive summaries whether it's required or not. In either case, we want to discourage users from using paywall sources when there are other options available, and for some people, it's their first choice to the detriment of most users.

Just use an open source and none of this will matter.

atcsundevil wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

Interesting rule, posting verbatim is copyright violation and writing own summary could be construed as fudging facts.

It's only fudging the facts if you fudge the facts. Any reasonably intelligent person can read a sentence and formulate it into their own words coveying the same information.

Just use an open source and none of this will matter.

Sounds like write-in-your-own-words high school history assignment. Alexander the Great, Enlightened Leader (or) Brutal Warrior. Both interpretations from the same primary source are considered acceptable.

Barr's summary of Mueller's report, some see as fudging, others may believe it as factual representation.

Open source articles are hard to come by as many moving towards subscription service.

I hope this is not another rule enabling astroturfers' rule shopping to report posts they don't like.

dtw2hyd wrote:

atcsundevil wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

Interesting rule, posting verbatim is copyright violation and writing own summary could be construed as fudging facts.

It's only fudging the facts if you fudge the facts. Any reasonably intelligent person can read a sentence and formulate it into their own words coveying the same information.

Just use an open source and none of this will matter.

Sounds like write-in-your-own-words high school history assignment. Alexander the Great, Enlightened Leader (or) Brutal Warrior. Both interpretations from the same primary source are considered acceptable.

Barr's summary of Mueller's report, some see as fudging, others may believe it as factual representation.

Open source articles are hard to come by as many moving towards subscription service.

I hope this is not another rule enabling astroturfers' rule shopping to report posts they don't like.

What it sounds like is that you wouldn't be happy with any solution we came up with, so I won't bother wasting my time anymore.

This happened to me today (I assume) - except I included a fair use excerpt - which is allowed by copyright law in most areas (certainly the US.) I think moderation on this site has gone downhill as, when they perform moderation tasks, they now seem to do so without the courtesy of informing you as to the reason. I don't actually know why my thread was deleted, but seeing this I think I have an idea.

N328KF wrote:

This happened to me today (I assume) - except I included a fair use excerpt - which is allowed by copyright law in most areas (certainly the US.) I think moderation on this site has gone downhill as, when they perform moderation tasks, they now seem to do so without the courtesy of informing you as to the reason. I don't actually know why my thread was deleted, but seeing this I think I have an idea.

When posting links to any type of source you are required to add your own comments, since there were no user comments the thread was deleted for being in violation of forum rules.

In regards to deletion notifications we haven’t had this since the site was updated in 2016, as a result of not having automatic email notifications regarding deletions if you have a query over a deletion just email us and we will give you the reason why it was removed