[Imc-web] suitable feature?

[JASON MIEREK]

I have to agree with Sascha on this one.  In my three months of using the 
website and particpating in web meetings, I have seen an issue this 
contentious arise only once---this time.  It would seem to me then that 
there does not need to be a formalized policy on the issue of what consists 
of a feature---we may all simply have to accept a bit of diagreement in what 
comprises features and agree to disagree.

As a dj for and member of Berkeley Liberation Radio, I often watched simple 
policy or content disagreements crystallize into damn-near authoritarian, 
formalized solutions (complete with obligatory name calling---"agent 
provacateur" and the like) that alienated entire segments of the progressive 
community and seemed to echo the restricted nature of communications and 
media at large.

Don't want to see that here.

Jason






>From: Sascha Meinrath <sascha at ucimc.org>
>CC: imc-web at ucimc.org
>Subject: Re: [Imc-web] suitable feature?
>Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 10:11:31 -0600 (CST)
>
>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
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>_______________________________________________
>Imc-web mailing list
>Imc-web at lists.cu.groogroo.com
>http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc-web


_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail