[Imc-web] Please take this lightly...

[Mike Lehman]

Wendy Edwards wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 06:43:34PM -0500, Mike Lehman wrote:
>   
>> Ishmael has always toyed with the existing interpretation. Wendy felt a 
>> need for us to be particularly cautious with editing him, because she 
>> said he should have right of reply as a cop. It was only later that it 
>> turns out that Wendy was digging into IPs to confirm this (and Ishmael 
>> is fooling no one about what his employment is, but we sure didn't need 
>> to confirm it), perhaps through ignorance of what policy on this is, but 
>> partly also because written policy needs to catch up with technology. 
>> That is what we're working on here. I personally was surprised that 
>> Wendy wasn't aware of existing policy on privacy, as I was under the 
>> impression that she has always read the lists and this was the topic of 
>> extensive discussion back in 2002. So I have been letting things run a 
>> bit wider than usual for Ishmael.
>>     
>
> Nope, I wouldn't have had any reason to be on the imc-web list in
> 2002, and I wasn't.  But when we met a few weeks ago and I told
> you about the IP information, you didn't seem to have any problem
> with it.  How fascinating that you've now decided that it's "ill-
> gotten."
>
>   
This was a discussion that saw extensive attention in Steering and 
wasn't confined to the imc-web list. In fact, web didn't really start to 
get used for editing until after this point, IIRC. I'm willing to grant 
that you were ignorant of the particulars of the policy, although it 
surprises that you treated such privacy info so lightly about it with 
your experience on the web in general and at UC IMC in particular. I 
didn't make a big deal out of it then and I'm not now. I just wanted to 
note what the reasons around being flexible with Ishmael were, when he 
has been over the line in what people have in the way of recent 
expectations with UC IMC editing. As I noted at length earlier, I'm more 
inclined to be flexible about things, than strict, but when people get 
to the point of purposefully pushed the editing buttons here, eventually 
things happen.
>> interpreting Ishmael editorially because of Wendy's (somewhat 
>> ill-gotten) identification of him as someone with a right to reply.
>>
>> You might ask, well , why did Ishmael go over the line today? I suspect 
>> it's because Wendy gave the IP folk an invitation to come on over and 
>> that Ishmael knew he had a crowd to act out in front of and make his big 
>> splash, although I didn't realize that until I surfed over to IP after 
>> finally having to hide Ishmael and finding out Wendy had placed the 
>> Welcome mat out over there. Of course, maybe Ishamel had a bad day. If 
>> he chills out and starts working on critiquing BD's writing, instead of 
>> BD's existence, I'm OK with him still posting. But if he feels the 
>> martyrdom thing fits his purpose better than constructively dialogging 
>> with those he disagrees with, then I can see him also being on the 
>> agenda for at least a temporary suspension at the next Steering meeting.
>>
>> Finally, I simply do not understand Wendy's motivation here. Maybe she 
>> thinks that all those folks over at IP will come over to UC IMC if we 
>> just had an editing policy like theirs and we'd be one big happy family. 
>> But our editing policy is NOT keeping anyone at IP from doing exactly 
>> that now.
>>     
>
> OK, I'll spell it out.  The "Get Off the Bus" post appalled me.  I found
> it incredibly offensive that BD would claim that the president of the
> local NAACP was "being used" when he dared to form his own opinion.  I
> will also point out that Gina Jackson was there that night, and she
> spent a lot of time investigating afterward.  Ironically, I felt most
> comfortable expressing my sincere opinion on IP.
>
>   
Well you've been appalled and contemptible about things in general 
around here lately. Does this have anything to do with some recent 
comments you've made elsewhere that indicate you think that our 
editorial policy should be subject to peer-review? Because this may also 
be something that you're not familiar with.

In part, the intent of setting up Indymedia in the first place was to 
avoid the dog-and-pony show of peer-review. If you think that somehow 
people are thinking that any IMC is what constitutes a peer-reviewed 
journal, then they are simply mistaken. We've never made such a claim 
and I think most IMCistas who've thought about the issue would 
explicitly reject such a notion as irrelevant to the IMC model or IMC 
principles. If you're afraid that someone is going to blame you or make 
you feel like you have some responsibility for Brian's articles because 
you're an editor here, then can easily put distance between yourself and 
that by simply resigning your editing privileges. Personally I think 
anyone who would deal in such a red-baiting construction of your guilt 
for Brian is, well, contemptible themselves. But that's just my opinion...

Also, I don't think that BRian was the one that directly commented on 
the possibility that all the talk about anyone being used in this whole 
affair might also consider that Rev. Chambers seems to have only been 
quoted on a very specific part of NAACP policy. It's a very fair 
question to raise this, since it would seem that the talking points on 
excessive force use by police are directly relevant here. In fact, it's 
a virtual blackout about the fact that NAACP policy may not be as cut 
and dried as Rev. Chambers seems to be quoted on that in the dominant 
media. I would be very interested to hear what he has to say about that 
policy. Why isn't the rest of the media? Aren't they picking and 
choosing their facts AT LEAST as much, if not more, than Brian is? I 
know most of the folks at IP will probably think this is of no 
significance, but I find it rather incredible that your exposure to 
Indymedia has not taught you to be at least this critical of someone 
other than Brian.
>> In fact, I'd really enjoy some of those folks coming over here and 
>> acting like the good liberals over there who patient enough to try to 
>> explain a different side to those at IP. That would be something I would 
>> support and I would oppose -- at this point -- that we shouldn't allow 
>> them to do that. The problem is that the IP crowd is the dominant crowd. 
>> They think that they should be dominant at IP, they think the same thing 
>> at the N-G, Fox, Sinclair, I could go on. But when they come to UC IMC, 
>> guess what? The only ones who want to bother coming here are those who 
>> want to insist on treating discussion here like they are dominant here, 
>> too that ,we should acknowledge that dominance and if our coverage 
>> doesn't do that, then we are just fucked up human beings. And guess 
>> what, Bingo! Most of that quickly ends up in File 13. And it should keep 
>> showing up in File 13 even if we gained some at least marginally polite 
>> and thoughtful conservatives at UC IMC under present policy. I 
>> appreciate reading IP occasionally, as I've always been a big fan of 
>> understanding the opposition, and they do seem to be intolerant of much 
>> the same crap our policy is. However, even I think they let some of the 
>> discussion on Wendy's article to get out of hand, particularly some of 
>> the discussion about Finney's son. I didn't go back to check if any of 
>> it got deleted, but of course there is no way there for the casual 
>> reader to see what's hidden.
>>     
>
> You want to know what got hidden on IP on my thread there?  Try 
> "nothing."  People saw the cheap shots at Finney for what they were,
> and there were a number of posts pointing this out.  In fact, I almost
> chose not to post the "Crash" story to UCIMC at all because of the
> pattern of hiding dissenting posts.  Honestly, I'd rather have people
> tell me that something I post is crap than have this surreal left-
> wing echo chamber. 
>
>   
I've got no problem with them not hiding that stuff, if that's their 
policy. I don't spend much time wringing my hands at someone else's 
website. It's a big, big internet and we all know what bullshit the 
cries of "free speech" are on it unless you're suggesting I'll be going 
to your house, stealing your computer, and breaking your hands so you 
can't use another keyboard.  I know that you have been critical of such 
discourse here like that about Finney's son and it has often fallen 
under on website editing knife. So I guess I'm wondering if you've 
complained to Gordy about that?

But that just proves my point about the differing power dynamics at IP 
than exist here, which has yielded differing editorial policies. And I 
wouldn't be surprised or alarmed if you simply haven't noticed that they 
likely do they same things we do with certain varieties of posts -- I 
don't see any ads their or anti-Semitic crap, but IP is hooked up to the 
'net and we all know what a PITA it can be sometimes. It's entirely 
their right at IP to have the editorial policy they want, just as it is 
here.

And I will note yet again that there are several obviously conservative 
posters that maintain accounts at UC IMC and seem to have no problem 
interacting in ways that don't violate our editorial policy. How do they 
do that? By being respectful enough to engage with the ideas here in 
something that can be a a constructive fashion. Really. But leave the 
Rush imitations at home, because that sort of stuff off the cuff stuff 
tends to encourage people to violate our editorial policy.
>> In summary, the same trolls who get kicked out now, should get kicked 
>> out in the future. Nothing in our policy now prevents someone engaging 
>> constructively and respectfully with authors at UC IMC, except their 
>> subliminal or intentional desire to troll UC IMC.
>>     
>
> Excuse me, but I know something about trolling, and I don't perceive
> disagreement as trolling.  The most skilled and destructive trolls are
> often a bit more subtle.
>
> Wendy
>
>
>   
Yeah, I'm sure you do know something about trolling. Whenever you want 
to explain the BMTL thing for everyone, for instance, go ahead. I find 
it rather interesting that the filter model I described works exactly as 
described when tested against a model specifically designed to violate 
it. Blog-style discourse bounced. Case closed. Works exactly as I 
described in a blind test. No IPs involved. Someday I might explain the 
rest of the filter model, but what we already have works without getting 
into sticky specific judgments about politics.
Mike Lehman