[Imc-web] Inappropriate Post

[Wendy Edwards]

On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 08:29:19PM -0600, Danielle Chynoweth wrote:
> I would like to call a meeting of the IMC web editing team so that we
> can meet face to face to address the following (as well as anything
> else others would like to add to the agenda).
> 
> Posting administrative information publicly.
> --> Administrators have access to information such as account e-mails
> and IP addresses that the public does not.  Recently an IMC web editor
> posted information about the source of anonymous posts.  I find this
> inappropriate and would like to suggest a policy where we make it
> clear that IMC web editors are not to engage in this.

Excuse me, but I did not publicize the IP address or likely poster.
The only thing I noted was that the sources of certain anonymous
posts were the same.  This was significant because it looked like
the writer was trying to create the appearance that the posts
came from different people.  This is known as sockpuppetry, and
it's generally considered dishonest.  Are we going to put up with
this too and prohibit editors from challenging it?

> IMC Web Editor perogative
> --> I am concerned with web editors engaging in trolling-like
> behavior, in a recent case, against another IMC member.  The best way
> to handle concerns about accuracy of information coming out of IMC
> journalists is to engage in conversation.  I would like to invite
> Wendy, Brian, Chris, Mike, and others to the table to discuss the
> reporting on the Myers case and allow for reasonable face to face
> conversation about concerns, giving Wendy the ability to raise them
> and Brian the ability to respond to them.  I would also like to weigh
> in on this discussion.

I get so tired of hearing posts people don't like categorized as
"trolling."  A cop wants to disagree with some of Brian's assertions?
Clearly he must be a troll.  In fact, this seems to be one of the
reasons that so many people look down on UCIMC.  It's embarrassing that
IlliniPundit is a lot more tolerant of dissent than we are, even
though we apparently claim to be concerned about free speech.  

> Policy for adding and removing items from the features section.
> --> I recently added a feature to the center panel.  I did not follow
> our policy of e-mailing the group when I did this, nor have many other
> editors.  It was removed.  I was a bit miffed, but like I said, I
> didn't follow policy, and I have no lingering issues with the removal
> other than the desire to establish what our policy is regarding
> posting and removal of features.  Also there is this nifty area where
> an admin can weight a story - we should talk about using this.  This
> could have been used, for example, to keep the IMC fundraiser at the
> top while allowing other features to be posted.

I had nothing to do with de-featuring your story.

> Policy for hiding posts.
> --> There have been a number of times I have wondered why certain
> posts were hidden.   I would like a recap on the policy for hiding
> posts, pull out a few examples, and have the hider explain their
> reasoning.

That seems reasonable.
> 
> Outreach
> --> Right now there are 3-4 web editors who are actively editing the
> web.  I would like for us to consider how we can expand that pool.
> For example all the current editors are white - I would like for us to
> talk about diversifying perhaps through invitation.
> 
That's a good idea.

Wendy