[Imc-web] Notes from 3/15 meeting

[dan blah]

sorry i missed th e meeting, it's been a long rough week.  below are
some of my thoughts/ideas:

On 3/17/07, Danielle Chynoweth <chyn at ojctech.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
can someone write this out more clearly so i can add it to our wiki?

> DC: Let's define and post definition of trolling, with how to remedy a
> hidden post. - personal attacks, etc.
>
can someone write this out more clearly so i can add it to our wiki?

> WE: Consider universal code of civility.
>
i have no idea what this means... i have read organizations versions
of these but this is the first i have ever heard this used here.
would be nice if we could define this rather than pawn it off to a
universal blah that the universe is supposed to just understand.

> BD: Let people going over a line stand for itself.
>
this would be nice if we all saw eye to eye.  see below suggestion of
a editor assisted user moderated site.  that is the only way i could
be all for a site where a line will *always* 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.
>
wiki wiki wiki

>
> 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.
>
for sure...  this is huge and should never be considered ever.

> 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 privy to in a public way.  We should really not even look at
> this info unless we have an administrative reason to do so.
>
even having it available is largely frowned upon within the global
tech community.  making it publicly known we have it available is not
a good thing.

>
> 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.
>
imc web editors should hold a weekly radio show/podcast discussing the
uc-imc frontpage stories for outreach with a bi product of promoting
some sort of working relationship.

> 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.
>
why not just have a form on the website that sends to the web list?
we should also have a contact page with a phone number and such on it.

> 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.
>
we could always do the 'digg' style of promoting along side using
moderators (see http://www.digg.com).  this allows visitors to give a
story basically a thumbs up or thumbs down or a 5 star rating.
stories that meet our threshold automagically get promoted to the
front page.

> Never got to this.
>
> - Danielle
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IMC-Web mailing list
> IMC-Web at lists.ucimc.org
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc-web
>
>


-- 
Daniel