<!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>
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>
Mike Lehman<br>
<br>
On 3/8/2011 8:42 AM, Chris Ritzo wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTinOh4fT8WDgVbPo9Rmy+R_9h+0AhgThxffCQhvV@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p>Maybe you should post the editorial policy online. What is it?</p>
<blockquote type="cite">On Mar 8, 2011 8:40 AM, "Brian Dolinar"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:briandolinar@gmail.com">briandolinar@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
Should all the people who can feature posts be on the imc-web
list at a minimum?<br>
I suspect Kristina may have featured the piece, but not for
sure.<br>
I can tell her about the editorial policy and get her signed up.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
BD</font>
<p><font color="#500050"><br>
<br>
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Mike Lehman <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:rebelmike@earthlink.net">rebelmike@earthlink.net</a>>
wrote:<br>
><br>
> I have no idea.<br>
>...</font><br>
</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>