I’m making this thread primarily because of the mild debacle that happened in Media Coverage. So I suggest a couple new rules;
Any media coverage about Ubuntu MATE must be created from a reputable source only.
Any content published must never be posted by the original author.
Wikipedia has similar rules for reasons of verifibility. If we don’t adopt such rules for our own community, the media section will have videos from every john and jeanne who wants to wax lyrical about why they love Linux so much, rather than objective reviews from publishers who specialize in open-source stuff.
1 - If you feel some media coverage is inappropriate, then it should be flagged for staff attention.
2 - People should feel free to create their own videos to post their work in our media forum. Regulation of that would be censorship. Every " john and jeanne" should have access. Again, flags can be used instead of a blanket rule barring all would be posters.
Allready in the rules is credit given (links) to all work used from others in ALL forums. From that we can judge for ourselves the value.
I welcome that mild debacle because it provided a great learning experience. Your comments contributed to this experience and I am glad you took the time to “demystify the Linux experience”. Your technical knowledge is of great value to this community.
This forum is not Wikipedia. Its aim is not “objectivity” but to share personal experiences with Ubuntu MATE, exchange ideas on how to make it better, and to help each other in learning more about our operating system of choice.[quote=“v3xx, post:2, topic:8426”]
People should feel free to create their own videos to post their work in our media forum. Regulation of that would be censorship.
Alright. Obviously I need to further address this concern with more conciseness, and the arguments presented before me will be my only aid this time;
I believe that Media Coverage is a special place. Not to say that we should be exclusionary of the media therein, but that we should be a little more strict with it because Media Coverage will likely be one of the first places objectively-minded users visit.
Personally, as a user of other software by companies that really do mind what other people say about their products, I believe that Media Coverage offers an extraordinary level of transparency and accountability of the system. But if it’s full of, for lack of better term, Amateur hour videos, I do not think that people would take that area of the forum as seriously.
And honestly, I dislike saying that; leaves the most awful taste in my mouth. But, I also know that other people’s expectations may be higher than mine. I really don’t mind that everybody could post there, but it’s like not letting everybody with an AirBnB account into your bedroom; If MC is full of trusted, verifiable content by more reputable peers then this community can maintain its radical standard of transparency so people don’t need to scour the Internet for all things Ubuntu MATE.
We already have a place for people to share ideas; It’s called Thoughts & Feedback. Now, the line can be blurred somewhat because a fair bit of the pieces in MC already include thoughts and feedback about the system. But I don’t want everybody using Media Coverage as their way of receiving attention for content that is tosh to somebody wanting to find anything objective about the system.
Everybody waxing lyrical about how good Ubuntu MATE is creates a hugbox that makes everybody feel good, but helps nobody whatsoever. A part of learning is knowing all sides; the good, the bad and everything in between. What is that saying about us if all we can do is talk about how good it is? I personally feel that is content suitable only for T&F while MC can serve as a place where all the reviews and objective commentary about Ubuntu MATE can reside.
But then again, what do I know? I’ve done none of the above, and the OP were only a couple of suggestions to tighten up MC because, as I woefully lacked mentioning in my OP, there are other places where general praise can go.