<!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">
Chris,<br>
Admittedly, that would be the ideal if there were any way to easily
do that at this point. There isn't any easy way to do it, even if I
could get a copy of the last written version from the site archives,
so here's how I see what's needed.<br>
<br>
First of all, I am uncomfortable with writing down something that by
default is essentially my policy, not something arrived at by
consensus, although it is based on consensus previously arrived at
in the past. Since 2005, I've been very interested in there actually
being a group that arrives at these decisions, rather than just me
due to lack of general interest in the problem of abusive posting
behavior. There were changes made before then that were never
codified in writing, for instance. I still respect the intent of
those changes, but what we need going forward is a policy that truly
reflects current consensus, rather than a ghostly presence that I've
been breathing life into for years after others lost interest in the
topic.<br>
<br>
I'd much rather describe the abuses and problems, describe what I've
done about them over the last 6 years, and -- perhaps -- suggest
what a functional Web group should address and may want to change.
But the decisions that follow should be those of a functioning Web
editorial group, not just me. A "real community site" has that as a
basic requirement.<br>
<br>
The issue of website content is also intimately related to the fact
that relatively few in the community use the site, even when it's a
"slap your forehead, why isn't that stuff on UC IMC?" moment. In
part, I think that is because so much of the rest of the IMC media
presence is stronger than the website's. At one point, I made an
effort to keep up with what was happening and should be posted on
the website, but -- once again -- that still amounted to the way I
see things, not an actual IMC policy, unless people really want to
defer to my judgment. Strangely enough, that works until there is
something that bothers them and then they want to briefly have a
say, without understanding the full back story and context to the
decisions I've made. An active Web group would have that context.<br>
<br>
The website as currently set up probably has some sort of
functionality for collective editorial decision making, but we have
no policy to implement that with, which I think is the general way
to go here in order to better include more people in a decision
making editorial process. <br>
<br>
And with relatively few legitimate users, those few who abuse
anonymous posting with such intent want to make something they
disagree with into their own counter website via their comments have
become a significant problem. The very few complaints I've seen are
from this handful of trolls who are very identifiable, other than
the fact that they're anonymous. It's part of being a troll to hurl
such accusations. I used to be more selective about dealing with
them, hiding only things that are clearly out of bounds. But over
the last couple of years, this seemed to only encourage them to up
the ante. <br>
<br>
When it got to persistent, blatant racism with them, I finally drew
the line and now promptly take them to the woodhouse -- no matter
what they have to say. They're just fishing for a chance to start
the process again, as I often in the past did by allowing them to
resume posting until they again started puncheding the buttons to
get a reaction. I made the decision that is not going to happen
again with them, they had their chance. My patience is at an end
with them. If someone else thinks they represent anything of
significance beyond trolling, they're welcome to change this ad hoc
policy to something written, after hearing why I made those
decisions so they don't come to editing and dealing with the trolls
from a state of naivety. <br>
<br>
I will note that it has been years since a registered user created a
significant problem, other than the ad spammers who are so clueless
they think they have to register to post their crap. Those are like
shooting fish in a barrel and there is no controversy in deleting
that crap and blocking such accounts when it appears. But anonymous
commenting has been widely abused by a very few, who actually are so
obsessed with doing so they hang around for years.<br>
<br>
And anyone who has a clue on the internet knows that complaints
about editorial policy should be taken up with the editors, not
repeatedly inserted as the coda to comments they clearly know are
headed for File 13. The Web group's email is available and the list
archives can easily be checked to determine that, for all the
reflexive gnashing of teeth they exhibit, they almost never see my
decisions as important enough to send an email inquiry to find out
what the issue actually is. But they are happy to come back for more
trolling. Funny how that works.<br>
<br>
Whining up a storm in random comments seems to suit them better for
some not too hard to understand reason. They're welcome to take
their comments elsewhere.<br>
<br>
Maybe people want something different? I have no problem with that.
But with something different comes responsibility for the rest. I'm
happy to entertain complaints and have done so when they are
communicated to me in a somewhat reasonable fashion. On the other
hand, my heart has turned to concrete in terms of tolerance for the
few who seem to need to get a life, rather than spend time trolling
IMC because they don't like what we do here. <br>
<br>
I want someone else to deal with this, not to randomly and
occasionally micromanage what I've done for so long because no one
else was interested in it. What happened before is that once such a
complaint was addressed, often at length, the critics disappear and
I end up still carrying the load and catching whatever grief there
is for editing. Those doing the work should make these decisions,
not those who are only intermittently interested in this work. In
some ways, this parallels the issues with Finance, where a few
people gripe a lot about things, although they actively avoid any
actual participation in the process in order to better understand it
or actually help with the work.<br>
<br>
That is the reason why I want a Web group actually stand up to
function and I'll pass them the hot potato, along with a whole bunch
of material I feel is improper to post publicly, because the trolls
-- who clearly read our public archives -- can exploit it to evade
the efforts to prevent them from grinding their tired and rusty axes
here to no point.<br>
Mike Lehman<br>
<br>
<br>
On 3/8/2011 1:37 PM, Chris Ritzo wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTimJgmW4a7N-HgPm_v5Huq_B3-B4HyVBauh7BdoW@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p>I really have no interest in changing it, but rather to
communicate more about it. Whether its anonymous posters
wondering about the hide policy or Americorps members or others
who may not even know one exists. If this is a real comnunity
site, then ppl need to know what the parameters are.</p>
<blockquote type="cite">On Mar 8, 2011 9:34 AM, "Mike Lehman" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:rebelmike@earthlink.net">rebelmike@earthlink.net</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> Chris,<br>
As I've noted several times before, I'd be glad to set down
with folks and lay out where things have been, where they are,
and what needs to be done to update the old written editorial
policy. Still waiting to hear from those interested, though.<br>
<br>
Effectively, everyone else left the bag with me in about 2005.
The old policy is buried in the inaccessible archived site
(at least it was inaccessible the last several times that the
question has been asked.) <br>
<br>
I know it's the fashion at certain IMCs to not worry too much
about editorial policy, essentially, anything goes. However,
that has never been the case with UC IMC in the 10+ years the
website has been in existence. That can change to whatever
people want it to be, but in the meantime I only have
precedent to go on. <br>
<br>
In the absence of interest by others in taking on this
responsibility, I've been handling it, based on what the
policy was and the flexibility that was always built into the
policy to adapt to the persistent problems that accompany
running a website that defends otherwise marginalized interest
and opinions. <br>
<br>
I have no intention of asking any particular thing about a
rewritten policy, other than that it continue to observe the
broad parameters generally required of Indymedia network
editorial policy and that it actually be a functioning working
group, rather than a few people who take different roles as we
currently have.<br>
<br>
On the other hand, it would be irresponsible to simply walk
away from it, which is what pretty much left me in this
position in the first place. Until a Web group is actively
interested in managing the website, I'm willing to continue.
However, the very worst policy is one established by the
parameters of what people want to occasionally complain about
from time to time. That is what happened the last time an
attempt was made to deal with this in 2007.<br>
<br>
In this particular case, however, the policy is pretty clear
and succinct, so I'll write it out here again in rough form. <br>
<br>
Stories promoted to Feature status should be those that are
relevantly local to UC IMC. This may mean the story is a local
one or that the author seems to be local (in order to account
for those anonymous stories that we cannot necessarily confirm
are local), but who may be writing on a theme or topic that
may not necessarily be local. This does not mean that all
stories posted on the Local Newswire qualify. Many may, but
clearly not all will. <br>
<br>
There are also rare cases where a non-local story is relevant
enough we decide to feature it here. That was the case with
the killing of Brad Will in Oaxaca a few years ago, where we
reposted the detailed NYC IMC story on this with a brief
introduction I wrote.<br>
<br>
The fact that stories we Feature here are automatically
syndicated to US and global IMC sites should also be taken
into consideration. For instance, sometimes we feature stories
that are strictly UC IMC relevant, but really have no
relevance to those it would be syndicated to. There are ways
to do those so they don't syndicate, but this is usually not
done, I suppose because people aren't aware of how to do that.<br>
<br>
It's also the case that anyone who has editorial access MUST
be on the Web list. If they're not, then those who granted
that access need to follow-up with them and get them signed
up. Seems obvious to me, but the lack of a written policy to
refer to is a problem, I agree.<br>
<br>
Again, I'm just waiting to throw this in someone else's lap,
but that will happen when it's clear that people want to take
the ball and run with it. Call the meeting and I'll be there
to explain where things stand and to then pass the baton.<br>
<font color="#888888"> Mike Lehman</font>
<p><font color="#500050"><br>
<br>
On 3/8/2011 8:42 AM, Chris Ritzo wrote:<br>
><br>
> Maybe you should post the editorial policy online.
Wha...</font></p>
</div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
IMC-Web mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:IMC-Web@lists.chambana.net">IMC-Web@lists.chambana.net</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/imc-web"
target="_blank">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/imc-web</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<font face="Tahoma" size="2"><br>
=======<br>
Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.<br>
(Email Guard: 7.0.0.21, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.17060)<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.pctools.com/?cclick=EmailFooterClean_51">http://www.pctools.com</a><br>
=======</font>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>