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

[David Gehrig]

Here is my edit of Mike's text, which is maybe a little more
straightforward.

----
* On Indymedia and Web Discourse *

The focus of our efforts is to use the tools of independent media to
best serve the needs of the underserved communities we embrace in our
mission statement. (http://www.ucimc.org/info/mission)

Indymedia and the term "blog" both date from 1999, but Indymedia sites
are not blogs and do not operate under the usual blog standard of
discourse.

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 maintains an atmosphere
that encourages positive civil engagement for social justice.

Posters who want to repeatedly engage in discourse that appears to
intentionally stretch the bounds of typical UCIMC discourse with an
intent to disrupt and discourage thoughtful discussion must take
responsibility for that through registration.

The present policy is meant to foster open yet focused discussion that
welcomes all who respect it, while discouraging those who intend to
create an unwelcoming space with their comments.


* Registered Users *

The Web group strongly encourages UCIMC posters to sign up for an
account on the UCIMC website. There are several advantages for users,
including the ability to edit your posts for typos and corrections
after they've been posted. There are also advantages for the readers
of UCIMC -- discussions with many anonymous comments can be confusing
and hard to follow without some indication of who is who.

Registration requires a working email address. Given that free email
addresses are readily available from companies like Yahoo, Google, and
Microsoft Hotmail, we do not feel that this requirement is a
significant barrier for users who want to preserve their anonymity.



* Privacy, Spambots, and Logging *

UCIMC honors the privacy of posters.

The previous version of the UCIMC website was nearly pushed over the
edge by spambots, which posted nearly a thousand spams a day on the
site. There are other IMC sites that were destroyed by spambots.

The software running the new UCIMC site, drupal, allows for logging of
IP addresses for comments. The software logs these IP addresses for 24
hours, after which they are automatically deleted. These IP addresses
are logged solely to track spambots and are used for no other purpose.
IMC Web editors agree that they will not disclose IP addresses, nor
investigate them in any way for reasons other than fighting spam. IP
addresses will never be used to determine the identity of individual
posters or to determine which poster posted what; IMC users have the
expectation that their anonymity will be preserved.


* Hiding and Deleting Posts *

Posts which are inconsistent with the purpose of the site may be
hidden. Hidden posts are still available for viewing, but the reader
must choose to see them by clicking on the "hidden posts" link in the
left side bar. Similarly, hidden comments are available for viewing by
clicking the "hidden comments" link at the bottom of a story page.

Posts are deleted only if

-- they are duplicate posts

-- they are spam or meant for Googlebombing

-- they are racist or in some other way clearly inconsistent with the
purposes of the site.


* Patterns of Abuse *

UC-IMC Web editors reserve the right to hide posts inconsistent with
the purposes of the site. In practice, we do not do so unless such
posts exhibit a clear pattern of trolling.

In some cases of flagrant or repeated abuse, registered users may be
suspended at an editor's discretion, pending confirmation at the next
Steering Meeting.

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.


* Definition of Trolling *

We do not provide a fixed definition of what constitutes trolling.
However, the following points are among those included when the
editors determine whether a given poster has descended into a trolling
pattern.

-- Attack posts: posts that consisting primarily of insults or
disparaging remarks against individuals or activist projects without
attempting justification of such remarks.

-- 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).

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

-- Targeting a regular site user for abuse.

-- Refusal to register with the site after multiple requests.

-- Disproportionate use of profanity.

-- Racism.

-- 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.


* Discussion of UCIMC Editorial Policy *

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


---

On 6/7/07, Mike Lehman <rebelmike at earthlink.net> wrote:
> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IMC mailing list
> IMC at lists.ucimc.org
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc
>