[Imc-web] suitable feature?

[Sascha Meinrath]

I would argue that our current process works exceedingly well -- yes we
occasionally disagree, but I don't think anything's broken.  I also don't
want us to formalize a certain set of parameters for what constitutes a
feature.  I see this akin to the problem that the Public i faced -- they
formalized what made for "good content" in their paper, alienated many of
their contributors, and were revitalized only when they returned to a
pluralistic view of how to accept materials and operate.  If I or any
other editor were monopolizing the feature section, that would be one
thing, but we have all coexisted quite well, with a diversity of articles
and features -- and it's never proven a problem.

One suggestion I do have is that we might want to increase the default
number of features and local news stories that dada allows -- we certainly
have the space at the bottom of the page.

--Sascha

On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Paul Riismandel wrote:

> I do think critiques can be relevant features, but Joe's story was not a
> fully formed critique. It's fine as a post, but as a feature it has to
> carry more weight.  Yes, it did spark debate, which I won't dismiss.
> Were it a more studied post -- referencing actual posts and critiquing
> them more substantively and explicitly, then I'd also likely be more
> convinced. But this post was more of a "Look out! Bullshit!" with
> nothing more.
>
> My point is that our internal debate leads me to think we need to
> discuss more thoroughly in the web group what constitutes a feature.
>  Secondly, we should discuss our method of letting someone make a
> feature without any other notice to or approval from the group.
>
> --Paul
>
> Sascha Meinrath wrote:
>
> >Mainly the reason why I made it a feature is because it was all I had to
> >work with on the story.  I know that one of the first things I did when I
> >heard about the shuttle was go to the UCIMC website and see what was there
> >-- I'm sure others were checking in as well.
> >
> >But there wasn't anything, so I put up a razorwire...  Joe's response was
> >the first one, so I replaced the razor-wire.  Had a substantive story
> >popped up I would have made Joe's story a comment and put that up.  Yet,
> >Joe's commentary _became_ the story.  I hear what Paul and Clint are
> >saying -- I also think that critiques of the media are also relevant
> >features.  In this case, Joe's was a very sparse beginning; but the
> >conversation that it's sparked has been quite exceptional.
> >
> >I'd prefer to think of it as a feature that grew into itself -- and I also
> >think that it provides exactly the venue for debate that our website
> >strives for.  In these ways, I think it's been an incredibly "successful"
> >feature.  One that only now is being covered by other venues (see comment
> >33 on the feature).
> >
> >--Sascha
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Imc-web mailing list
> >Imc-web at lists.cu.groogroo.com
> >http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc-web
> >
> >
>
>