<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Stuart and Josh,<br>
The hidden comments were made by the long-time troll. I got fed up with
his well-documented racism. It always starts innocently enough by being
just his irritating and repetitive obsession with others obeying the
law, then grows into more blatant crap. I'm fed up with him.<br>
<br>
On the other hand, it's good that others are finally using the website
to make comments and making it something more than Brian's stories that
said troll will then be the only reply.<br>
<br>
To read the hidden posts, you need only be logged in on the website,
then click where it says Hidden Posts on the page with the original
article. They're all there. <br>
<br>
On the other hand, a reply would simply be feeding this particular
troll. He is truly uninterested in the substance of any reply, simply
using it as a diving board for his soliloquy about the "evil" that
Indymedia website users encourage. Why that doesn't apply to him as an
obsessed IMC-abuser is, of course, unclear. In any case, since Stuart
is advocating for people who might have technically broken some law,
whatever the injustice of the rest of the story, there will never be
any substantive discussion with him.<br>
<br>
As for documentation, I've got a series of documents that I gathered
together from the last time we began this discussion, in 2007 just
before the arson of my house (related? Who knows?) and other info
collected since then. This was when the civilian Police Oversight Board
discussion was instense and Wendy thought we should run the IMC's
website like the late IP, then compromised the respect for anonymity
required of editors, then left. The discussion petered out at that
point, although it was handed to Web to deal with.<br>
<br>
Essentially, given the lack of interest by others and the fact that
editing for abusive postings on the website have largely fallen to me
over the last 5 years, things have ended up in my lap and I've dealt
with them on the basis of prior art and example. <br>
<br>
So, any policy discussion needs to begin on the basis of carrying
through with the significant revisions made to the policy since the
last time it was codified (like in 2003?) as well as any changes that
people would want to make. There is no single document that documents
our policy at this point and would be available to simply post. If
people want to start this discussion again, I'd be glad to help get the
discussion started provided we intend to carry it through to completion
if it's begun again.<br>
<br>
BTW, I would argue that the neatest solution to the conflicting
interests inherent in operating the IMC website with a functional
editorial policy that truly encourages those without a voice in the
dominant media would be to establish a blog (and, no, the IMC website
is NOT a blog) as an associated venture. That way the trolls have a
place where virtually anything goes, people who want to engage such
posters can do so freely, and the IMC website itself can continue
serving marginalized media users without pandering to those who object
to our very existence.<br>
Mike Lehman<br>
<br>
On 8/11/2010 4:16 AM, Josh King wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4C626A84.6080204@chambana.net" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">There seem to be a number of comments hidden on that post, but none of
them seem to have editorial reasons attached. Is there any reason not to
unhide the comment that Stuart mentions?
Hey Mike, I'd like to post the site editorial policy on the wiki. Sorry,
I know this has been asked about a million times, but can you point me
in the direction of any documentation of it?
On 08/11/2010 10:59 AM, Stuart Levy wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi. There was starting to be an immigration discussion in the thread
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://ucimc.org/content/july-29-help-us-demonstrate-against-persecution-undocumented-immigrants">http://ucimc.org/content/july-29-help-us-demonstrate-against-persecution-undocumented-immigrants</a>
I'd written a note (titled "If we admitted ten percent..."),
and an anonymous person had replied to it, some time Sunday 8/8.
I'd like to reply to his reply, but can't find it now. Was it hidden?
Though I disagree with what he said, it seemed on-topic, etc.
If the poster himself withdrew it, that's fine, but if it was hidden
by an editor for some reason, I (as the originator of the thread)
would rather see it return to the living.
cheers
Stuart
_______________________________________________
IMC-Web mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:IMC-Web@lists.chambana.net">IMC-Web@lists.chambana.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/imc-web">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/imc-web</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<pre wrap="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
_______________________________________________
IMC-Web mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:IMC-Web@lists.chambana.net">IMC-Web@lists.chambana.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/imc-web">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/imc-web</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>