[IMC-US] PROPOSAL (was indymedia and google)

[Chris Anderson]

I agree with Max and the others who have expressed a
desire that we go beyond "pure and simple
syndication." It would seem to be only tapping the
surface of the potential that such a site would offer.

however, i understand the reasoning of folks who want
to keep the imc as locally-based and participant
focused as possible. Josh's idea seems to be a good
solution-- a compromise in some senses-- that could
allow us to move forward.

thoughts?

chris 

--- max <max at michiganimc.org> wrote:
> I am all in favor of getting this site up in a
> "least common demominator"
> fashion ASAP.  but I think personally that it would
> be a shame if we didn't
> allow for some synthesis and analysis in the form of
> compiled articles from
> an editorial team of some kind.  I think the
> syndication will work fine for
> now, but it is not my ideal for the site, which I
> think should have an
> editorial voice of its own (in addition to the
> syndication of course).  
> 
> I agree with the critique deva made regarding the
> uselessness of a newswire
> that's not local (at least that's how I understood
> it). 
> 
> I agree with john in that it would be bad to just
> change the nature of the
> project if that's not what was approved by new imc.
> 
> but regarding the idea of having a site without a
> newswire but with an
> editorial voice: just because it hasn't been done
> before, doesn't mean it
> should never happen.  I don't see the "all indy
> sites are either just pure
> syndication or have open newswires" as having any
> real inherent logic or
> value.  I think that this is a unique project and it
> will therefore have a
> unique manifestation.  
> 
> max
> 
> ---
> 
> 
> Quoting Tribal Scribal <valeoftheoaks at hotmail.com>:
> 
> > Does this mean we're not addressing the concern i
> voiced last night about
> > 
> > the editorial team being able to put up center
> column features on
> > breaking 
> > news not covered by any local's?
> > 
> > 
> > d.o.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ****************************************
> > "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is
> a good thing, and as 
> > necessary in the political world as storms in the
> physical world."
> > 
> >                               - Thomas Jefferson
> > ***************************************
> > more rebellion here:
> > http://concertobi.blogspot.com/
> > 
> > ***************************************
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > >From: john duda <john at manifestor.org>
> > >To: deva <drdartist at riseup.net>
> > >CC: imc-us at lists.cu.groogroo.com
> > >Subject: Re: [IMC-US] PROPOSAL (was indymedia and
> google)
> > >Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 21:10:06 -0700
> > >
> > >ok, i fixed a bunch of stuff on:
> > >
> > >http://usimc.kicks-ass.net/en/
> > >
> > >with the basic idea being a syndication site
> (with featured
> > >sydicated stories)
> > >
> > >i also got rid of the somewhat funny but fairly
> cryptic bowling ball
> > >banner, making the top banner rotate at random.
> > >
> > >hopefully this will be in good enough shape by
> tomorrow or friday that
> > >we can think about launching really soon.....
> > >
> > >john
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 04:42:34PM -0700, deva
> wrote:
> > > > I am in favour of this idea
> > > >
> > > > deva
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Jul 21, 2004, at 4:03 PM, john duda wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >why don't i go ahead and set up usimc as a
> very basic syndication
> > site
> > > > >a la oceania.indymedia(pretty much working
> now except for some
> > > > >template bugs)?  in other words, no editorial
> features and no open
> > > > >publishing...
> > > > >
> > > > >like bht said, editors can remove things that
> are obviously local,
> > and
> > > > >we can also use the "startpage special"
> category in mir to feature
> > > > >syndicated articles of exceptional relevance.
>  also, editors can
> > make
> > > > >up for what the feeds don't provide by
> grabbing abstracts for
> > features
> > > > >from local sites that lack a detailed feed. 
> editors can also do
> > the
> > > > >work of sorting local features into topics,
> so that what we wind up
> > > > >with is an intelligible, comprehensive,
> categorized, archived, and
> > > > >searchable site of all us indymedia features.
> > > > >
> > > > >this way the site could be up and running as
> early as *tomorrow*. 
> > and
> > > > >we can have the discussion about the
> google/open publishing issues
> > > > >after the dnc...maybe even after the rnc.
> > > > >
> > > > >my two cents,
> > > > >john
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 03:25:59PM -0700, bht
> wrote:
> > > > >>hey all, i have been reading the discussion
> over google and
> > listened
> > > > >>to it
> > > > >>at the allied media conference.  I would
> like to say a few words
> > > > >>about it.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>I am not against people trying to get google
> to list indymedia
> > > > >>articles, I
> > > > >>actually think it would be great to get them
> up there, it would be
> > > > >>great
> > > > >>outreach and advertisement, and make all of
> us work a little
> > harder
> > > > >>moderating the sites :-)
> > > > >>
> > > > >>However, this discussion is turning into
> "how can we not be
> > indymedia
> > > > >>for
> > > > >>google yet still be indymedia enough for
> indymedia"...and i dont
> > > > >>really
> > > > >>like it.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Having said that getting google listing is
> great, I would also like
> > to
> > > > >>think that sticking to what indymedia is is
> also important, it
> > this
> > > > >>respect it is more imnportant to stay
> indymedia instead of
> > pandering
> > > > >>to
> > > > >>the interests of larger entities to get
> exposure.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>THere is a gap of whether we are tactical
> and whther we are
> > > > >>alternatives
> > > > >>to corporate media.  I like to think that we
> are tactical and offer
> > a
> > > > >>community support role and should stick to
> our communities.  If we
> 
=== message truncated ===

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com