[Imc] posting at the U-C IMC

[Mike Lehman]

I don't know so much what the definition of what it is, as what it
isn't. I don't believe it's racism, tin-foil hat right-wing conspiracy
theories, preaching, or "Bobby Meade". Probably a lot of other stuff,
too.

I'm not advocating taking down any individual posts along these lines,
though. Rather my ire is directed at the few who are obviously taking
advantage of the IMC system by spamming all IMCs with the same usually
questionable material, hoping to turn it into a conspiracy chat room.
Policy against this sort of behavior has already been articulated in
numerous ways, both in how the IMC network as a whole is constucted to
how we already determine abuse of the system at U-C IMC.

My desire was to make this a more concrete definition. Once again,
attempts to simply enforce already agreed to policies have a tendency to
be turned into some great censorship issue, when the people at issue
have plenty of free speech, the issue being in how to prevent their
voices from drowning out the individual posters trying to make local
news on local IMCs.

Real news has legs; it gets on the global site and it quickly gets
picked up by others. There's no need for it to be spammed, if it really
is news (and usually what is being spammed is virtually devoid of news
value in any meaningful way.) Or it might not be that significant and
it's still only a click away from U-C IMC site.

I find it interesting that we keep getting comments that U-C IMC isn't
filled with the wacky stuff like many others (for now). I see people
from other IMCs commenting because they found an article here
interesting. Mostly, the lack of spammed crap has been because of luck
so far. And we are beginning to find out that we are only a click away
from the anal types who have to post their crap everywhere. They are
starting to get bored with just posting to what (in their minds) are big
cities and have started trashing us, too. Either we have a plan for
moderating the deluge of shit-- there's no other way to describe
it--check out http://www.indymedia.org/ anytime---or we make a strategic
decision to abandon the Newswire to those who want to squander the
commons.

In regard to my posting, I would like to think that you notice a
qualitative difference between what I post and the unfair comparison of
it to Meade/Larrabee/??, which I am assuming you made for the sake of
attempting to spur an articulation of what the difference is.

It's not sending something I think is locally relevant to every other
IMC on the planet; it's adding a comment to put something into local
context; it's wishing I had time to write a story about a particular
subject, but not having time and wishing it gets some exposure anyway by
somebody who could write better than I ever could; it's posting stuff by
local groups that somehow always seem to overlook putting it on our
Newswire, even though I know they've been reminded how much exposure it
gets there news. It's actually writing stories myself sometimes. It's
seeing somebody else already has put up something I though I might when
I check the Newswire. It's trying to be a part of a community, instead
of taking advantage of a community resource.

I wish there were sevaeral more people conrtributing regularly to our
Newswire than the few who do already, even among other work groups like
News and Print who have the material but often forget to post it. I
think the best way to encourage people to at least make the attempt at
posting news to keep posting on the Newswire is to ensure it doesn't
turn into the wasteland of global IMC.

After all, isn't one of those enough? I think we can avoid that here,
but only if we are prepared to enforce the standards we already have
(and even add to them) to deal with obvious abuse of the idea of what
the Newswire should be. I would like to think that this is not just my
idea; I know there are others who feel the same way.
Mike Lehman


John Wason wrote:
> 
> At 11:33 AM 12/10/2001 -0600, Mike Lehman wrote:
> 
> >Paul, your offer to him sounds magnanimous; I'm OK with it, if others
> >are. From the sound of his reply and the quickness of it, I imagine it's
> >a form letter that he sends to everyone who complains. If he agrees to
> >the limitations and abides by them, I have no problem letting him post
> >weekly. Not that his stuff adds much to a website for progressives...
> >Mike Lehman
> 
> Interesting that I should have a problem with this last statement, since I
> argue in the context of the public i that the "progressive" viewpoint is the
> one underrepresented in the dominant media.  But my concern with this and
> other issues of "quality control" stems primarily from the fact that as a
> print medium, we must pay roughly $300.00 for only 8 pages/month, so we have
> to be selective.  I don't see such issues as being of equal importance in
> the context of the web site.  So then I have to ask:  Are we a web site only
> for 'progressives', whatever the hell exactly that is?  Or are we a web site
> where people who don't have access to the corporate media can find a medium
> of public expression?
> 
> Actually, I notice on the web site quite a few things that have already been
> published somewhere in the mainstream media, so that would seem not to be
> much of a criterion either.
> 
> I say one non-commercial message per poster per day across the board,
> progressive or non-progressive, and let people skip the stuff they don't
> want to read.  How difficult is that?  Interestingly enough, that policy
> would probably end up being more of a constraint on M.L. than on any other
> single individual, since M.L. seems frequently to post more than one message
> per day, albeit messages taken for the most part from other sources.  I
> happen to like most of the stuff M.L. posts, but he is the sole determiner
> of what is 'progressive' or not, and what is 'of local interest'.  And his
> also being on the Steering Group seems then to be something of a conflict of
> interest.
> 
> To me the larger question is who are we as an IMC, and who is going to
> determine and enforce all these rather arbitrary distinctions that seem to
> be being made?
> 
> Ah, well, I suppose I should just stick to the public i.  Just, please,
> don't start logging where everyone's web site post came from.
> 
> John
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IMC mailing list
> IMC at urbana.indymedia.org
> http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc