[Imc-web] Re: Feature, and a Question

[Mike Lehman]

Hi Brian,
I don't know who de-featured it. Nobody is telling me anything or 
posting it to the IMC-web list, where it _should_ be, and I am starting 
to wonder WTF is going in general with editing, as long-established 
policies are being ignored right and left.

I suspect someone has somehow gotten editor privileges and, like you, 
isn't on the IMC-web list. I am going to cc my reply here to you to 
IMC-web anyway, in the hopes that somebody will fess up and we can get 
this straightened out before I or somebody else gets POed, instead of 
just frustrated with people screwing around with editing who obviously 
are clueless about how this is accomplished.

I will note a problem that is easy to fix and that is your posting new 
articles as both an article and a comment. This gets very confusing to 
readers, who will comment in on place and then find the same thing is 
somewhere else, thus leading them to copy their comments, starting an 
endless circle of duplication that is mroe confusing to readers than it 
is enlightening. If you want people to be aware in older articles of new 
info, it's best to just post a link to the new info/article as a 
comment, instaed of the entire new article being duplicated as a 
comment, too. That way things don't get anymore chaotic than the website 
really needs to be. If you need to know how to do that, let me know.

There is plenty else to discuss, but this will need to wait until we can 
meet, as I have other commitments right now and there's plenty of 
relatively complicated editing issues to explore. I do NOT want to make 
it seem like the way things have been done is the way it needs to be 
done in the future. But we do need to agree on things together if we're 
going to start making changes in web editing policies and procedures or 
we'll all end upset by something if we don't get on the same page soon.
Mike Lehman

Brian Dolinar wrote:
> I edited my report on Sheriff Walsh this morning
> and it was taken down off the page.
> Did I do something wrong?
> Someone need to click a button to make it happen?
>
> Thanks. BD
>
> On 2/7/07, Mike Lehman <rebelmike at earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Brian,
>> OK, but this raises the question of who granted you editing privileges:
>>
>> 1. Without notification and/or discussion among the other editor's from
>> IMC-Web. This is not a big deal, but it all too easily leads to
>> misunderstandings. Web editing has the longest history of any media
>> activity at UC IMC and is fraught with a number of understood but not
>> always written policies. New editors are typically briefed and always,
>> just like trhe rest of us, subject to proper notices when certain
>> decisions are made.
>>
>> 2. The problems that can be caused when someone is made an editor, yet
>> has apparently not been briefed on policy.
>>
>> I would suggest that you do not engage in further editing until we've
>> had a chance to have these issues discussed and settled. You are not
>> even a member of the IMC-Web list, so you're effectively out of
>> communication with the rest of us. Editing can all too easily create
>> issues that other posters will raise if it seemingly results in a vanity
>> press. I think you took entirely the wrong cue from my discussion about
>> the regalia article and that is definitely leading to further
>> misunderstandings.
>>
>> Since you apparently didn't receive the email with my concerns about
>> Featuring announcements from Monday, I'll copy it below. This is just a
>> start on a variety of things you'll need to learn and apply as policy if
>> you're going to be join in editing
>> Mike Lehman
>>
>> Subject: [Imc-web] Policy on Featuring Announcements
>> Date: 2/5/2007 1:30 PM
>> I want to raise a couple of concerns about featuring announcements.
>> First, I've seen no messages regarding Brian Dolinar's two stories being
>> made into features, as they should be sent to this list per policy.
>>
>> The main issue is that both stories are basically announcements and
>> really offer little new info about either long-running story. It has
>> been our policy for some time that announcements should not be featured,
>> with exceptions being available for IMC events. If an announcement
>> provides substantive new info related to an ongoing story, then an
>> exception can be made, but I don't really see that in either of these
>> cases -- and if it exists, it should be noted in the feature email sent
>> to imc-web when that is done.
>>
>> Another factor is that we now have the "Upcoming Events" news wire that
>> provides even more exposure than simply offering Local Newswire space
>> for announcements.
>>
>> Brian sent me a message about featuring both of these a few days ago. I
>> have noted current policy on this to him before and advised him that I
>> didn't think either really qualified for an exception. I also advised
>> him that he should send such requests to the imc-web list, so that more
>> people could be involved in making such decisions, rather than making
>> personal requests of individual editors without input from others. I
>> haven't seen such a message.
>>
>> I also advised Brian that he could move his stories up to the Upcoming
>> Events newswire, just so long as he added a date to the headline. I went
>> to the trouble of explaining what he needed to do, since when he's
>> signed in as a regular user, this means he won't be so dependent on
>> waiting for us to fix issues with his many stories.
>>
>> If people think we should review the existing policy, then we should
>> meet and do that. At a minimum, such requests should be made to the
>> imc-web list and any decisions made to feature them should be documented
>> with a message from the editor doing so back to the imc-web list, giving
>> the reasons why an exception should be made.
>>
>> Please note that this in no way constitutes a judgment about the
>> importance of either event or action. It's just that this issue has a
>> long history that may not be apparent to all of those with current
>> editor privileges. It has always been somewhat of a problem with people
>> being motivated to use our site for announcements, but being far less
>> motivated to file an actual news story afterwards telling our readers
>> what actually happened. I know we take a very wide view of what
>> constitutes news on Indymedia, but there is a clear difference between
>> that and an announcement that I think is worth respecting. If nothing
>> else, then we're going to start receiving complaints from those whose
>> announcements did not get featured, as well as filling up the feature
>> section with stuff that isn't really news.
>>
>> A final factor to consider is syndication. Right now, I don't think it's
>> working, so it's not an issue, but we really do desperately need to get
>> it working. Then, anything that is an announcement here will be even
>> less suitable for syndication. If you review what is featured elsewhere
>> in Indymedia, you'll see that other IMCs follow a policy on featuring
>> announcements that is very similar to our existing policy. In any case,
>> there is little additional value in syndicating announcements -- and it
>> would tend to make US Indymedia a far more boring read and less
>> compelling to return to, for instance, if it was full of mostly locally
>> oriented announcements like those I've been discussing here.
>>
>> I realize this is a complicated issue with a number of nuances that are
>> hard to address via email. I think it might be good to have a meeting,
>> if there is a perceived need to change the existing policy. But in the
>> meantime, I think existing policy has served us well and I request that
>> we try to follow it as best possible in the meantime.
>> Mike Lehman
>>
>> Brian Dolinar wrote:
>> > Hello Wendy.
>> >
>> > I've taken cue from Mike on his Chief regalia article
>> > that the most newsworthy stuff be at top of features.
>> > I would like to see the Patrick Thompson trial announcement
>> > as the first thing you see when you pull the page up.
>> > After today's events, others can go to the top.
>> >
>> > I don't know who made my Taser update a feature.
>> >
>> > Thats all for now.
>> >
>> > See you in the courtroom.
>> >
>> > BD
>> >
>> > On 2/7/07, Mike Lehman <rebelmike at earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >> I made this a Feature:
>> >> http://www.ucimc.org/node/910
>> >>
>> >> It's an article, and a bit of an opinion piece, on an ongoing 
>> story that
>> >> has drawn strong readership and comment. In the absence of other
>> >> reporting on the Feb. 1 Forum, it's what we got and should be 
>> featured.
>> >>
>> >> OK, now the question. I see that Brian has another story featured:
>> >> http://www.ucimc.org/node/911
>> >> which is cool, considering this one is really news and not just an
>> >> annoucement. However, as I mentioned in my note the other day about
>> >> announcement policy, I think everyone would appreciate it if any 
>> editor
>> >> making a Feature would please follow established policy and send a 
>> note
>> >> to this list.
>> >>
>> >> Brian, I'm curious if you know anything about this? I want to 
>> avoid the
>> >> obvious way to enforce policy, demote any Features that aren't 
>> properly
>> >> noticed, and avoid getting you caught in the middle. The way it 
>> was done
>> >> is also a bit of a disservice to a commenter who reacted to this 
>> posting
>> >> since it was already posted as a comment in your 
>> Feature/Announcement of
>> >> the hearing.
>> >> Mike Lehman
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>