[Imc-web] Notes from 3/15 meeting

[Danielle Chynoweth]

IMC-Web
3.14.07

Wendy, Brian, Danielle, Mike
These are VERY ROUGH notes - I was tired - dc

History
ML: Steering devolved power to IMC web which shrunk to Mike.  Now we have a
collective again.

Policy for hiding posts?
DC's e-mail: --> 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.

ML: Jack Ryan decision:  Look at Fall 2004 notes for reference.
    We decided against trolling: short, snide, personal, picking a fight.
    Dave G wrote something out - where is it?
    Listserv ettique issue with Sandra A and John W
    All account holders are treated as an IMC members.
    Appeals process - you can get on IMC-web (look at old site policy)
    Anonymous - anything that appears to be trolling can be hidden.
    Mike L hides posts based on content, not IP addresses or sources.
    Mike traces patterns to individual trollers.

DC: Let's define and post definition of trolling, with how to remedy a
hidden post. - personal attacks, etc.

WE: Consider universal code of civility.

BD: Let people going over a line stand for itself.

Summary: No decision except a sense that we should find out documents and
work on revised policy over time, making that policy public.


Policy for adding and removing items from the features section?
DC's email --> 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.


DC: Propose that IMC editors can request changes to an author before posting
a story in a feature. Author must except before changes (other than spelling
and grammar) are done.

Summary: We already consider the above a policy.  We will go back to posting
to IMC-web when we make a feature, providing reasoning, and allowing other
editors to contest.


Administrative information publicly?
DC's e-mail --> 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.

WE: proposes Sock Puppetry - where one person appears to be more than one
person to support their position - be considered unethical.

Lots of discussion on "sock puppetry" versus playing devils advocate.

Summary: Restate current policy that we should not post information that
editors are privvy to in a public way.  We should really not even look at
this info unless we have an administrative reason to do so.


IMC Web Editor perogative
DC's e-mail: --> 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.

BD: What did you disagree with in my writing?  Give examples.

WE: Calling for the firing of Mary Shenck and replacing her with someone of
a "brighter color."  It was "tacky" to write directly to her.  Also not all
people of color are the same.

BD: There is not a single writer of color at the NG.  I have met with
Howie.  I have confronted Mary Shenck.

DC: Mary's story was one of the worst piece of journalism I have ever seen.

ML: We are here to tell truth mixed with opinion.  We have never been
"objective".

WE: This is such a black and white version of the world.

DC: Well, say that on the website.

WE: Blogger bash was bashing the IMC - it was embarrassing.

DC: We could make it clearer how people could bring up grievances to us -
they can join the website, come to a steering meeting.  We are not going to
censor ourselves so arm chair activists don't criticize us behind our backs.

WE: Why have an open public list?

DC: For accountability.

... more said here, but I stopped taking notes.  Mostly we discussed whether
race plays a role in the criminal justice system.  Wendy was invited to hear
from black folks at CU Citizens on this.


Outreach
DC's e-mail: 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.

Never got to this.

- Danielle
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/imc-web/attachments/20070317/81eb359d/attachment.htm