Makes sense to pay people more if they bring value to your business. Only problem is that if you get a bad apple, they can drive business away just as quickly as it came.

If an individual asks for help or assistance then I find it appropriate that editorial assistance be provide. If not, it should not occur by default.

One way this could be done is to place an optional check box on your “Community Content Submission Form”

______ Please edit my submission grammatical accuracy.

or

______ My submission is in final edited format,no editorial review is needed.

You are not the post office – in web terms, the cables and ISPs are the post office, and I agree they should not interfere with our communications.

Finally, to say that spelling and grammar do not hinder communication is simply wrong. You seem to suggest that we can do things any way. So:

Who’s right – is it any way?

or

Whose right is it anyway?

I actually started deciding not to when it was requested by the actual authors themselves.

I appreciate the intent of your point, and the truth is that slight errors in spelling and grammer DO NOT HINDER communication.

This is an editorial myth.

Secondly the belief that: “the only voices heard are those skilled in communication” …is INCORRECT.

The voices that will be heard will be from the people who control the media… i.e.

“Control Tools & Platform Which Deliver The Message”

This is exactly why services like YouTube and Blogger have and continue to change the world.

These platforms give people a direct voice to their audience.

Hyperlocal news is still evolving and this why questions like “Do You Edit Community Submitted Content” need to be addressed.

My article is all about giving more people the opportunity at having a voice.

The line that you cross in your original post was to insult my own article as to make the point that I don’t know the difference between “who’s” and “whose”.

My use of “Who’s” did not hinder communication.

This was an attempt by you to enforce your point of view and prove a point, which is exactly what I am suggesting people let up on.

———-
Sorry to drive my point in here, but I think that it is really important.

We as a culture need to view media as the tool that delivers the message, not creates, manufactures, or controls the message.

Those working in media need to step away from the microphone and work to facilitate opportunity for others
to share their own voices.

———-
Back to the example of the post office:
———-

You wouldn’t think less of your mother having a few grammatical issue in a heart felt email to you?

Nor, would you want the post office editor opening her letter to spell check her message before you read it.

The world is big…

Giving people a voice… means allowing for a margin of error and respecting each individuals ability to communicate.

Not to mention the issue of different languages and styles coming into play.

The main thing is that people have a voice.

We are now living in a time in which many can begin to have a voice.

So to Edit or Not to Edit Community Submitted Content?

I was trying to make a genuine point about editing contributions. Errors in spelling and grammar DO hinder communication – that is why such rules exist – and those of us who have experience in editing and proof-reading surely owe a duty to others to aid their own efforts at communication.

If we are indeed establishing the means by which people “can have an opportunity to communicate with the world”, then it is an abnegation of responsibility to simply throw open the doors and step away from those less able to use language. The result of that will be that the only voices heard are those skilled in communication.

Perhaps I should have paid more attention to the subhead of your blog – “Tips to help you make money from hyperlocal marketing”. Of course you WILL make more money if you set up a platform and then walk away from it, eschewing any further involvement with the participants. I would suggest, however, that helping people on to that platform, and aiding people to use it, might be more appropriate and appreciated if not more lucrative.