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

deva drdartist at riseup.net
Sat Jul 24 14:16:41 CDT 2004 

I think global features group does an excellent job and I am impressed 
by the efforts to improve the multilingual nature of the site. I only 
used that example to point out something about structure, intent, and 
human nature, not single out global in some negative manner.

Also, I do not see the global structure as flawed. I do not see it as 
wrong to have a particular editorial voice. It is a choice to make. 
Counterpunch is an excellent website. It has it's own editorial view 
and approach. Nothing wrong with that. The global site has moved more 
towards that model and less of being a place where many people and many 
divergent views can be equally expressed.

Greater diversity means there would be things in the center column that 
someone does not agree with. When there is editorial ownership, there 
is usually the feeling of being represented by the center column and 
thus each person resists the things they do not agree with.

Editorial groups usually deal with this by changing things to moderate 
the parts one or more individuals do not like. This tends to steer 
content to an acceptable middle ground. This approach blunts diversity. 
Open publishing is a model whereby people can speak without having to 
please others opinions. Open publishing is an approach to foster 
greater diversity and participation. Positives and negatives in both 
directions.

Indymedia sites balance these two tendencies by have an editorial 
center column and an open publishing newswire.

In doing away with the open publishing newswire on the US site, it 
would then be the first indymedia site in the US (in the world?) on 
which the vast majority of people cannot post articles, media, or 
comment and are then not able to participate other than as consumers of 
the content a few people put up.

Is there some irony in having it be the US IMC that would be the first 
to end the participatory nature of an indymedia?

It is good to consider these things with open minds and hearts...

regards,
deva







On Jul 23, 2004, at 6:59 PM, max wrote:

> deva and all-
>
> I think the issues you brought up are really important, and I think 
> that we
> should deal with them in a productive way.  basically what I'm saying 
> is
> that I think that because global has those problems doesn't mean that 
> the
> structure of global is flawed.  I think that we could have an editorial
> team writing/compiling original features and work at maintaining an
> inclusive and diverse editorial voice.  as long as we stayed 
> respectful of
> each other, appreciative of each other's hard work, and followed the
> process we would lay out for ourselves.
>
> max
>
>
> ---
>
>
> Quoting deva <drdartist at riseup.net>:
>
>> hmmm... good point... do you have a suggestion?
>>
>> I am interested in an arrangement that allows for more diversity of
>> views, styles etc
>>
>> For example (and this is not intended as a criticism or blaming etc)
>> recently there was a feature put up on global that was subsequently
>> taken down and then after some bitter words, put back up with some
>> changes. The original author decided to leave the editorial group over
>> it. It expressed what might be called a minority view within 
>> indymedia.
>>
>> In an editorial group, over time, certain viewpoints and methods 
>> become
>> dominant. People with less acceptable approaches feel less welcome,
>> maybe become tired of pushing to be heard and sometimes leave. A sort
>> of unconscious conformity easily arises.
>>
>> Portland has had various features that individuals on the global
>> editorial features group have made ridiculing remarks about. I read
>> remarks such as 'leave the wacky stuff to Portland, it does not belong
>> on the global site' and other such.
>>
>> Global has a fixed identity and it is acceptable to say these things.
>> So now, before the US site sort of copies over the current global
>> approach and it becomes entrenched, I am asking about these things and
>> making suggestions in order to broaden coverage and avoid conflicts or
>> abdication due to avoiding conflicts.
>>
>> This comes back to John's basic question. Is it attempting to 
>> represent
>> the diversity of the local imc's, or is it going to develop it's own
>> viewpoint (like Global) which is not necessarily a view shared by
>> everyone?
>>
>> deva
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jul 22, 2004, at 12:36 PM, Mike Medow wrote:
>>
>>> Deva- I like the spirit of your proposal but I see this problem with
>>> it:
>>>
>>> This proposal could work but for the fact that many local IMCs are 
>>> not
>>> oriented towards generating compilation features that cover national
>>> politics. At Michigan IMC, for example, our content is very specific
>>> to our
>>> region of focus. Probably less than 5% of our features cover national
>>> political issues. And I think that is a good thing. I think that
>>> Michigan
>>> IMC should be for Michigan and the US-IMC should be for national
>>> politics.
>>> So if I want to submit a compilation feature on a national political
>>> issue
>>> for the US-IMC, I do not necessarily also want to have it featured on
>>> MI-IMC. Your proposal would necessitate it being featured on MI so
>>> that it
>>> could get on the US-IMC newswire, so that it could become a US-IMC
>>> feature.
>>>
>>> mike
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: imc-us-bounces at lists.cu.groogroo.com
>>> [mailto:imc-us-bounces at lists.cu.groogroo.com] On Behalf Of deva
>>> Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 1:12 PM
>>> To: imc-us at lists.cu.groogroo.com
>>> Subject: Re: [IMC-US] PROPOSAL (was indymedia and google)
>>>
>>> A couple things -
>>>
>>> Josh suggested an idea that is similar to how things are done here in
>>> Portland. In Portland, there is no original content created by the
>>> editorial group for the center column. However, anyone, including
>>> someone who contributes to the editorial group can write an excellent
>>> newswire article which is like a feature with links etc and that then
>>> becomes a feature. People here believe it is an important 
>>> distinction.
>>>
>>> So Josh suggested this for the US Site. Synthesis and Analysis in the
>>> form of compiled articles can always happen. Create it, and post it 
>>> to
>>> your local imc, and it is then on the US site.
>>>
>>> The advantage of this approach is that it encourages a wider variety
>> of
>>> stories, writing styles, viewpoints and opinions on what constitutes
>>> important news. It also keeps the focus on local sources and sites. 
>>> It
>>> levels the ground so every local imc, with their differing views and
>>> interests will have a strong voice on the site.
>>>
>>> An editorial group writing for the center column will be a very small
>>> number of people who will then have a rather disproportionate voice.
>>> Add this to the lack of ability of everyone else to post anything at
>>> all (without the open publishing wire) and the site has traveled far
>>> from the original vision of providing a forum for anyone to post 
>>> news.
>>> I do not automatically say traveling far is a bad idea in all cases,
>>> but in this case I do think it is.
>>>
>>> Ideas of what constitutes good 'journalism', or what empowers people,
>>> of the value of looking 'legitimate' all differ. An editorial group
>>> will make its decision about these things, and then other ways will
>>> fight to be included, or accept being excluded. The approach Josh is
>>> suggesting, makes it less likely to fight over editorial content and
>>> style, while promoting greater diversity. (which is needed)
>>>
>>> Tribal raises a good point about the breaking news. I agree that the
>>> editorial group should post breaking news.
>>>
>>> The editorial group could still add some links to syndicated features
>>>
>>> I do not know if anyone likes the idea, but it pleases me to have a
>>> general guideline of only adding links to local indymedia articles 
>>> and
>>> features. This way all added links would point towards a local imc
>>> site. At the same time, the editorial group could work with local
>>> indymedias to add other links and info to their features. This would
>>> promote more interaction between imc's and better collaboration and
>>> strengthen local imc's. I like this idea.
>>>
>>> cheers
>>> deva
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 22, 2004, at 6:51 AM, max 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
>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>> enough outreach there the people that need to read our sites
>> will
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> wont be cluttered with all these people that dont have the
>>>>> interests
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> our communities at heart.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Therefore, I think it would better to stick to being indymedia
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> not try
>>>>>>>>> to change /enough/ to be accepted by google.  I know that it is
>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>> peoples heartsong for this and I guess that there isnt much I
>> can
>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> change that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is the us site that is supposed to represent us imcs and
>>>>> reflect
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> indymedia tactic.  So, personally, it would make me happy if we
>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>> talk
>>>>>>>>> about how to get indymedia us finished int ime for these larger
>>>>> events
>>>>>>>>> that are taking place NOW.  Or we can deliberate about this for
>> a
>>>>>>>>> couple
>>>>>>>>> of months.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> bht
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Maybe if the site directed people to another site set up just
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> open
>>>>>>>>>> publishing with a
>>>>>>>>>> different root address that would be enough distance to make
>>>>> google
>>>>>>>>>> happy.
>>>>>>>>>> us.indmedia.org linked to us.openpublishing.org or something.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> IMC-US mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> IMC-US at lists.cu.groogroo.com
>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc-us
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> IMC-US mailing list
>>>>>>>>> IMC-US at lists.cu.groogroo.com
>>>>>>>>> http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc-us
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> this is where my public key can be found:
>>>>>>>> gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 03817826
>>>>>>>> Key fingerprint = 6C11 8D70 2ADE EFA9 498D  72CB 77EA 391A 0381
>>>>> 7826
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> IMC-US mailing list
>>>>>>>> IMC-US at lists.cu.groogroo.com
>>>>>>>> http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc-us
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> this is where my public key can be found:
>>>>>> gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 03817826
>>>>>> Key fingerprint = 6C11 8D70 2ADE EFA9 498D  72CB 77EA 391A 0381
>> 7826
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> IMC-US mailing list
>>>>>> IMC-US at lists.cu.groogroo.com
>>>>>> http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc-us
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> IMC-US mailing list
>>>>> IMC-US at lists.cu.groogroo.com
>>>>> http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc-us
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> IMC-US mailing list
>>> IMC-US at lists.cu.groogroo.com
>>> http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc-us
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> IMC-US mailing list
>>> IMC-US at lists.cu.groogroo.com
>>> http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc-us
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IMC-US mailing list
>> IMC-US at lists.cu.groogroo.com
>> http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc-us
>>
>

More information about the IMC-US mailing list