Stepping forward on the abuse -- was RE: [Imc-web] Hidden Post

Sun May 2 23:36:51 CDT 2004

I generally agree with you, Mike. I would much rather see a functioning Web working group. I think it's reasonable to say that the website is now much more popular and used than two years ago, and that reality merits more attention from the IMC as a whole.

--Paul

________________________________

From: imc-web-bounces at lists.cu.groogroo.com on behalf of Mike Lehman
Sent: Sun 5/2/2004 10:45 PM
To: UCIMC website work
Cc: imc
Subject: Re: Stepping forward on the abuse -- was RE: [Imc-web] Hidden Post

Paul,
I think some proposed language along the lines you suggest would be useful. I also have some other info that I'd like to pass along to people off-list and will do so at the May 6 Steering meeting, which seems to be the most immediately available venue to discuss these issues.

Most of the rest of this post is a little off that immediate topic, but does relate to concerns we share about the organizational structure (or lack thereof) with Web and Tech. I'll post it to the IMC list so that people can consider the alternatives to maybe begin a discussion with at Thursday's Steering meeting.

I think that it would be best if we could get a critical mass of web people to deal with such issues again on a regular basis, rather than dump it back into the lap of Steering. Given that all other news-production related groups have generally taken charge of their own editing with positive results, this would more generally fit the devolved model of editing authority that the other areas of news-production operate with at UC IMC. While there is something to be said about the seminal, historic nature of the close tie between Indymedia and its web presence, the unique way of treating the website as closely tied to Steering is somewhat at odds with the way other working groups at UC IMC now do their work.

Generally, I think people have been pretty happy with the way things have gone with the website. We do need a regularly scheduled meeting for Web to fit its obligation as a working group, but the only really significant reason to throw it back to Steering now is because it meets regularly and it used to deal with it directly.

I know there is/was a nascent proposal to make Tech a body composed of Tech reps from each working group. This may be too optimistic an objective as anything more than a suggestion right at this point, but incorporating Tech business with Web, along with making such a meeting the primary point of contact with the IMC's IT infrastructure, as well as a place to get tech questions answered, etc. might have some traction as part of such a monthly meeting.

Anyway, these are just some thoughts. If anyone does have concerns about  web editing, etc., please bring them to Steering as they may fit in with discussing the immediate issues if there is sufficient interest to do so.
Mike Lehman

Paul Bengt Riismandel wrote:

> Mike,
> 
> I think your judgement on this is OK.
> 
> I think we may want to consider having a publicly announced web meeting to discuss the increase in these types of posts. Since neither the web nor tech groups exists any longer, I think we'd want the OK of steering, with the proviso that we'll bring back any new policy ideas.
> 
> The reason I think it should be very public is because it allows us to challenge "Jack" and his ilk to put their money where their mouths are -- it's harder to (legitimately) cry censorship when you have the opportunity to come and have a say in the rules yourself.
> 
> Some ideas that might be integrated into a revised policy:
> 
> -Make it easier, by policy, to hide posts from non-registered users
> -Make it easier, by policy, to ban non-registered users (when they use a consistent screen-name).
> -Add a clear complaint procedure, whereby anyone can make a formal complaint about having posts hidden (but they have to folllow up in person)
> 
> The idea here is that we preserve the right and necessity for people to post anonymously, especially for newsworthy things, where anonymity may be necessary to protect the poster. But gives us greater power to clamp down on abuse of anonymity.
> 
> The idea is, if you want to post whatever the hell you want, including insults and incitements, then you have to come out into the open and defend your right to do so. Either by registering with Dada or by arguing your case with us.
> 
> If you want the privilege of only sitting behind your PC, then you give up the right to go nuts anonymously.
> 
> If there's interest in this, I can write up some suggested language to add to our current website use policy.
> 
> --Paul
> 
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: imc-web-bounces at lists.cu.groogroo.com on behalf of Mike Lehman
> Sent: Sat 5/1/2004 12:02 AM
> To: UCIMC website work
> Subject: [Imc-web] Hidden Post
>
>
>
> Well, Jack and his buds/alter egos apparently have nothing better to do this afternoon and tonight, as in approximately two dozen rude comments that certainly add nothing to public discourse. More of the same trash talk, but this one went over the limit, IMHO:
> http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/17228/index.php
>
> While this could possinly be the first time this person ever posted, it is at least as likely that Jack's failure to get the attention he craves by being hidden (an all too infrequent occurance, unfortunately) have driven him to assert different nyms, something which I suspect based on a number of recent posts that have the same basic shtick as Jack and have tended to be assoicated with his admitted posts.
>
> While I generally will let anyone say just about anything once, the specific use of Brooke's name and the implied threat of the language used cause me to believe that this specific comment is a violation that is in the nature of a threat or trolling.
>
> Please advise if you wish to dissent from my opinion.
>
> While it is probably too soon to come to a firm conclusion about the source of this much concentrated stupidity, I am tending to think that it is likely to be a much smaller group than the variety of nyms would have you believe at first glance, based on the cookie-cutter nature of the comments and the proliferation of nyms. This is perhaps a sign that this is an escalation of what has been a long-time troublesome phenomenoa.
>
> It may require a looser interpretation of our existing standards temporarily to tamp it down. We'll see, but I would be interested in hearing the oponions of others. The IMC space is getting to be a rather constantly unfriendly space again for legitimate users of the site.
> Mike Lehman

_______________________________________________
Imc-web mailing list
Imc-web at lists.cu.groogroo.com
http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc-web