[Imc-web] Web Editorial Policy Meeting, Wednesday, June 13 at 7pm

[Mike Lehman]

At tonight's Steering meeting, a time and date, Wednesday, June 13 at 
7pm, was set to continue discussing existing UC IMC editorial policy and 
any changes that might be desirable.

What follows is a draft of the policy as it stands with the various 
modifications and interpretations of UC IMC policy up to now. This 
document is a bit disorganized and covers a number of topics. It also 
includes some of the rationale behind the policy as it exists, as well 
as documents our experiences with abusive posting patterns on the 
website that shaped existing policy.

The document pasted below my signature takes up where the old written 
policy leaves off, which was modified with several amendments prior to 
the whole kettle of fish being left with me for most of the last three 
years.. The old policy is available at:
http://archive.ucimc.org/mod/info/display/policy/index.php

Everyone is invited to participate, but discussion will begin from where 
we are and proceed by consensus to where we want to be, if changes are 
deemed necessary. Thus, it is recommended that participants familiarize 
themselves with existing policy by reading the following.
Mike Lehman

*Existing UC IMC Web Editorial Policy, Factors in Defining Trolling, etc*

*Existing Policy*

Basically, the last 3 years have passed with very limited need for 
Steering to address continuing issues with website editing until very 
recently, a contrast from the first three years. Website editing 
devolved to a certain interpretation of where the last consensus 
policies enacted by Steering. It has been done by Mike for most of that 
time, who was joined in this work in the last year by David and, more 
recently, Wendy (who has since moved on for reasons that will not be 
discussed here.).

If you have been around long enough, you know that this has been largely 
an improvement over the trials of the learning curve of the first three 
years of web editing on our IMC’s site, then the current interpretation 
might be the position on web editing you favor. If you think that there 
are some things you’d like to see changed with web editing, then tinker 
carefully with what has been painfully constructed as a workable 
consensus in light of what the web was and what it has become in 
relation to UC IMC.

If you want to start from scratch, there is a very long learning curve 
that you ignore at our peril. And while Indymedia should foster 
idealism, we must be cautious about how much idealism will be included 
in our policy when we have been and continue to be the target of 
persistent, patterned trolling behavior. If you want to read a blog, 
then just cut things loose and UC IMC’s website will soon be acting like 
an Indymedia for the conservatives and just plain ol’ trolls, who will 
soon drive most legitimate community users away.

In the “marketplace of ideas” we need to specialize in fair trade, not 
“free trade” with our editorial policies.

Now some further thoughts from me on what our policy has been so that 
you can decide what you want the future to look like…

*For the old policy on paper, see:*

http://archive.ucimc.org/mod/info/display/policy/index.php

Note that large parts of this policy had been modified by a number of 
policy understandings on the part of Steering even before the time of 
the “Jack Ryan” decision that gave Web group a freer hand in dealing 
with patterns of trolling that had been identified already, as I mention 
below. The JR decision placed authority for dealing with UC IMC abuse 
onto two levels. Recognizable users could claim the appeals, etc 
embodied in the written policy, although it never was specifically 
updated to reflect that, leaving final decisions about abuses from 
registered users in the hands of the Steering group, where they remain. 
For the vast majority of abusive posts that were anonymous (and no users 
were verified on the old site) and which fit identifiable patterns, the 
Web group, which rapidly crumbled away to Mike, was delegated to 
exercise its best judgment in dealing with anonymous posts that:

A) fit a pattern of known abuse, no matter who the author claimed to be

B) fit a definition of trolling shaped by experience with trolls up to 
that time, but which specifically included the range of behaviors 
associated with “Jack Ryan” even though it was understood that this set 
of behaviors could not be restricted to “Jack” himself and would 
necessarily and consciously include those engaging in similar behavior.

*Thoughts that Have Modified My Interpretation of Trolling since Fall 2004*

Indymedia is NOT a blog. Posting behavior typically tolerated on many 
blogs can be construed as trolling under our editorial policy, based on 
the judgment of editors taking into consideration the following points, 
as well as the mission statement of UC IMC. Essentially, the better 
argued, more factual and closely engaged with the points of others in 
the thread your argument is in and the topic that started it, the less 
likely your comment or article will ever be considered as trolling, even 
if you choose to make it with passion and to disagree with others on the 
site.

*Two important themes*

Self-sorting for positive engagement with the community through 
encouraging registration, then discreetly privileging such users over 
anonymous users.

_Privilege news_ over commentary, especially if much of the commentary 
consists of patterns of attacks from anonymous users who make _no other 
contribution_ to the site.

Again, Indymedia is NOT a blog.

Indymedia is a normative institution, but unlike any other. This 
strengthens the need common to nearly every website to establish what 
its community is, because maintaining a useful community resource that 
allows anonymous posting requires some channeling in order to prevent it 
being rapidly made useless by the internet underworld that has no 
politics but their own abusive entertainment or who actively want to 
destroy Indymedia’s usefulness to legitimate users.

In Indymedia’s case, the focus of our efforts should be to best serve 
the needs of the underserved communities we embrace in our mission 
statement. (http://www.ucimc.org/info/mission) Establishing norms of 
discourse, especially ones of a broad nature that encourage engagement 
with the news from an Indymedia perspective, leaves plenty of room for 
argument, but also maintain a atmosphere that encourages positive civil 
engagement for social justice. If posters want to repeatedly engage in 
discourse that appears to intentionally stretch the bounds of typical 
discourse with the intent to disrupt and discourage thoughtful 
discussion, then they must take responsibility for that through 
registration. Since it is impossible to have both anonymous posting and 
force every anonymous poster to take a similar responsibility, this sets 
a standard for anonymous posters to engage with the Indymedia community 
on the terms we choose, an empowering need for the communities we serve. 
The present policy works well and needs only minor adjustments to build 
on a legacy of open yet focused discussion that welcomes all, while 
discouraging those who intend to create an unwelcoming space with their 
comments.

It also must be remembered that in having a physical space, we can make 
the web space serve a somewhat broader audience than might be 
comfortable within it, but we also need to be cautious about creating 
the mistaken impression through the website that, for instance, African 
American or any other people coming through the door are going to 
encounter someone who wants to preach to them about the deficiencies of 
their race.

*Our Experience*

Most frequently, trolls are anonymous, or are at least are not 
registered site users, even if their personality is all too familiar.

The new website design was purposely set-up to force those not 
registered to officially remain anonymous, in order to privilege 
registered site users. This reflects our prior experience that over 99% 
of all trolling that leads to hidden posts is by anonymous users, even 
though they are often distinctly recognizable personalities. The hidden 
files are no longer the attractive nuisance that certain trolls had 
turned into their own personal anti-IMC due to the limitations of the 
old site’s software. Now, any user can view hidden comments in context, 
but only within the specific article they are associated with. This 
maintains the Hidden Files as a learning experience for those joining 
the community, if they choose to use it in a positive way. It also 
provides another negative reinforcement to those who visit UC IMC to 
purposely test the broad limits expected of those engaging positively 
with the UC IMC community.

*Some Identifying Features Used as a Bayesian filter*

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_filter and 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes%27s_theorem for the basic ideas 
behind Bayesian filtering, in short, “*Bayes' law*) Bayesian filters can 
be constructed that are based on a result in probability theory 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_theory>, which relates the 
conditional <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_probability> and 
marginal <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_probability> 
probability distributions 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_distribution> of random 
variables <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_variable>. In some 
interpretations of probability 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability>, Bayes' theorem tells how to 
update or revise beliefs in light of new evidence: /a posteriori 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_posteriori>/.”

This is the process I use in identifying anonymous users who are engaged 
in patterns of trolling behavior that have drawn objections and shaped 
the “Jack Ryan” editorial decision in 2004. It is implemented by 
mentally weighing the comment and the context in as objective a manner 
as possible. It NEVER privileges any single factor, but requires a high 
correlation among a number of factors described below to draw a modestly 
subjective judgment about posts that might be considered trolling. This 
is why when apparently regular site users get ticked off at some of the 
trolls and call them a name, they don’t face invocation of the 
anti-trolling policy. Their other behavior indicates they are honest 
users of the site willing – for the most part – to respectfully engage 
in argument. With trolls, the opposite occurs and their discourse is 
primarily of a negative nature, who make little effort made to engage 
constructively with the topic at hand.

*Here are qualities assessed in implementing Bayesian filtering of 
anonymous comments*

Some trolls, frequently the ones with the largest number of posts, have 
been long time problems. Two have been with us for about 5 years. Back 
in those days, the primary behavior was posting obnoxious content as 
full articles. Several others joined us during the time that “Jack Ryan” 
appeared, some associated with him, some not. The primary characteristic 
here has been to use comments as oppositional graffiti, which tells our 
typical legitimate users nothing new and is designed to both discourage 
new users from joining the site and to discourage regular posters from 
doing articles. Since they don’t like us and can’t shut us down, the 
strategy seems to be to discourage people from using the site by making 
it an unwelcoming space.

The themes and obsessions of both groups are well-known and obvious to 
those familiar with their previous work (primarily me, but a few others 
who have been longtime IMCistas will also be somewhat familiar with it, 
too) and why they were originally banned, but may be less obvious to 
others. It has been noted from experience that tolerating such behavior 
on the part of anonymous users _tends to encourage it in others_, as 
such anonymous posters are obviously trying to reshape the site’s agenda 
and community values to suit their own.

*Specific issues/discourse that are typical of UC IMC trolls*

Strength of negativity and nitpickiness out of all proportion to the 
weakness of the comment’s supporting argument.

Smarminess – a “Jack Ryan” special, but also a very familiar pattern of 
the recent string of anti-BD posts

Posts that primarily consist of insults or disparaging remarks without 
attempting justification of such remarks.

Disproportionate use of profanity.

Disproportionate or gratuitous use of labeling (anarchist, communist, 
leftist, socialist, Zionist, queer, etc) that is outside the range of 
usual discourse on this site, in face-to-face meetings at UC IMC, or on 
Indymedia mailing lists (i.e. a flexible progressive community standard).

Insists that their “freedom of speech” is being infringed upon by Indymedia.

Belittling the relevance of activism and activist projects.

Disparaging Indymedia or UC IMC as an institution because of what 
another user posted.

Trolling can consist of specifically targeting a regular site user.

Repeated use of a tag line for identification instead of registering as 
a user on the site

Repeated consecutive anonymous posts by same apparent poster to the same 
story within a short time frame.

Failure to respond to attempts to facilitate more positive interactions 
with other users.

Persistently abrasive interaction with regular users of the site in the 
absence of other contributions.

Uses phrases such as “I used to be a member of UC IMC…” but insists on 
remaining anonymous and displays no cognition of UC IMC policy – and 
there is no other indication that they ever were an IMC member.

Using one user's article or comments to paint ALL UC IMC users as the 
same -- the overly broad generalization, in other words.

*Other Editorial Policy Points*

Discussion underneath UC IMC articles should generally focus on the 
issues at hand and not primarily on the views of other website users nor 
on attacking the author(s).. Personal attacks are discouraged in favor 
of engaging with the ideas, arguments, and supporting facts of other 
arguments.

Known (under the old site) or registered (under the new site) users may 
be issued a temporary ban by IMC Web editors until the next Steering 
meeting. Then the case will be discussed and an appropriate solution 
agreed to by Steering. Such users should be advised in whatever manner 
available that their ban will be discussed and they are invited to 
appear in person or to send a written statement to defend their 
behavior. Bans in the past have been either temporary, for a specific 
period, or permanent, with the possibility that the person affected can 
return to Steering to request the ban be lifted.

Tactics to completely delete certain posts were adapted in part because 
the former site’s software made keeping track of real stories difficult 
when we experienced persistent spam flooding attacks, as well as often 
permitted supposedly hidden stories to be visible to other users. The 
new software has so far proved resistant to such abuses and problems, 
but this is good policy to keep around. It also serves to deal with 
particularly persistent trolls who are so boring as to post the same 
crap over and over or who hope to turn the hidden articles section of UC 
IMC into their own personal anti-IMC.

Since users can easily find hidden posts still in their context in any 
discussion, violations that cause posts to be hidden can also serve as 
an instructive guide to other users as to how web editorial policy is 
interpreted at UC IMC.

Repeats of hidden posts may be deleted at the discretion of the web editors.

Posts of hate material associated with known patterns of abuse may have 
their texts, images, etc deleted at the discretion of the web editors.

Commercial spam may be deleted when it is no longer needed for 
administrative purposes.

*Discussions of UC IMC editorial policy* or its implementation are 
generally off-topic on the UC IMC website and may be hidden. Such 
discussions should be moved to either imc-web at ucimc.org 
<mailto:imc-web at ucimc.org> or to a F2F meeting.

*On the subject of anonymity for site users*

The primary site admin is the only person with the authority to use 
identifiable IP data without the express permission of the Steering 
group per our established policy. This use shall be restricted to 
administrative work on the site and to prevent and deter abuse. This 
authority may be delegated, but only to those with a clear idea of the 
sensitivity of such data for Indymedia and who will observe these 
restrictions. All IP logs on the site are routinely dumped as soon as no 
longer needed for administrative purposes, so operational settings of 
the web server should be configured with this in mind. [this policy was 
adopted in 2002, IIRC and should be in Steering notes somewhere]

*Registered Site Users*

Registered site users who have been a member of any UC IMC or other IMC 
mailing list for more than 30 days or who are otherwise known to an 
editor are treated as fully qualified as being covered by all UC IMC 
website editorial usage appeals process policies. Other website users 
may be subject to looser interpretations of these rules at the 
discretion of IMC web editors.

Registered users may be suspended at an editor’s discretion for flagrant 
or repeated patterns of abuse until the next Steering meeting.