We've published many stories about FA before, some better-received than others; but I've always been reasonably satisfied with what was posted. I was not super-happy with this. Perhaps it doesn't contain accusation, but it does suppose too much.
It's an important topic and it was right to have a story on it (just as for IMVU's original purchase); but it was not necessary or helpful to attach so much theory to a factual story – if there is any, it should come as part of attributed quotes from others.
It might be right to discuss third-party views, if they are representative of those held by a number of people. But a fact-led news story should probably not be the origin of novel theories or involved analysis unless there is clear evidence to justify it, within the author's area of expertise – even then, it might be best to devote a comment to it instead, so it is clearer that it is the author's opinion, not Flayrah's.
The associated tweet needlessly amplified the weakest part of the story, making the writer's own supposition out to be its main part – and the only one people wanted to talk about (at least as far as Twitter was concerned). I'm not sure that was the intent, but it was the result, and subsequent tweets compounded the issue. For that reason, I've removed it. It didn't properly represent the story, let alone Flayrah.
I've said a fair bit more to the author. Most of what I said was already in the contribution and editorial guidelines, so I won't repeat it here. They've said to me that they intend to improve the article; and it's getting very late for me, so I'm going to let them deal with that tonight.
Ultimately, I'm responsible for what goes down here; so I've apologized to Dragoneer privately, outlining certain relevant aspects of Flayrah's operation which are non-obvious to non-contributors – and, as you say, wishing him good fortune with what will doubtless be an uphill task.
We've published many stories about FA before, some better-received than others; but I've always been reasonably satisfied with what was posted. I was not super-happy with this. Perhaps it doesn't contain accusation, but it does suppose too much.
It's an important topic and it was right to have a story on it (just as for IMVU's original purchase); but it was not necessary or helpful to attach so much theory to a factual story – if there is any, it should come as part of attributed quotes from others.
It might be right to discuss third-party views, if they are representative of those held by a number of people. But a fact-led news story should probably not be the origin of novel theories or involved analysis unless there is clear evidence to justify it, within the author's area of expertise – even then, it might be best to devote a comment to it instead, so it is clearer that it is the author's opinion, not Flayrah's.
The associated tweet needlessly amplified the weakest part of the story, making the writer's own supposition out to be its main part – and the only one people wanted to talk about (at least as far as Twitter was concerned). I'm not sure that was the intent, but it was the result, and subsequent tweets compounded the issue. For that reason, I've removed it. It didn't properly represent the story, let alone Flayrah.
I've said a fair bit more to the author. Most of what I said was already in the contribution and editorial guidelines, so I won't repeat it here. They've said to me that they intend to improve the article; and it's getting very late for me, so I'm going to let them deal with that tonight.
Ultimately, I'm responsible for what goes down here; so I've apologized to Dragoneer privately, outlining certain relevant aspects of Flayrah's operation which are non-obvious to non-contributors – and, as you say, wishing him good fortune with what will doubtless be an uphill task.