[Imc-web] Meeting Day/Time
Mike Lehman
rebelmike at earthlink.net
Sun Apr 13 12:58:16 CDT 2008
Hi Everyone,
I was wondering if Wednesday, April 24 at 7 or 8pm would work to have a
meeting of the Web group. What do people think? Is an alternative day of
the week, time, or date better for any of those who'd like to be involved?
Mike Lehman
Mike Lehman wrote:
> Dan,
> Thanks for the reminder. Maybe we need to consider a different
> date/time? Any one have a suggestion? I doubt that we'll actually need
> to start having regular meetings once we all review current policy,
> etc unless the group grows beyond those I'm aware want to participate
> now, but it could.
> Mike Lehman
>
> dan blah wrote:
>> just a friendly reminder, the shows group holds events in the main
>> space from 7-10pm the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd wednesday of every month. i
>> only mention this because i would like to partake in any regular
>> meetings this group holds.
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 2, 2008 at 9:18 AM, Mike Lehman <rebelmike at earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Marti,
>>> I've added you to the Tech list.
>>>
>>> A couple of Wednesday's at the IMC should suffice. The next couple of
>>> weeks are going to be bad for me, as I'm finally moving back into my
>>> house after the arson there. Remind the list in a couple of weeks
>>> or we
>>> can set a date to have a meeting.
>>>
>>> Mike Lehman
>>>
>>> Marti Wilkinson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> How about meeting at 8PM Wednesday at the IMC or a local coffee
>>>>
>>> > house? Weekly meetings may not be necessary but perhaps once or
>>> twice
>>> > a month we can meet so I can be brought up to speed on the nuts n
>>> > bolts of the web group. I think I'm already on the tech list,
>>> but you
>>> > may want to add me to that list with this email. I no longer have
>>> > insight as my email provider and made the switch to DSL.
>>> >
>>> > On Feb 1, 2008 10:20 PM, Mike Lehman <rebelmike at earthlink.net
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> <mailto:rebelmike at earthlink.net>> wrote:
>>>>
>>> >
>>> > Hi Marti,
>>> > I've added you to the IMC-Web list.
>>> >
>>> > Official meetings of the Web group have been infrequent in
>>> recent
>>> > years,
>>> > with most work taking place on the IMC-Web list. That said,
>>> there
>>> > is an
>>> > informal get-together that occurs regularly on Wednesday
>>> evenings
>>> > at 9pm
>>> > at Crane Alley. David Gehrig and I have been the involved
>>> editors of
>>> > late, more through lack of interest by others than for any other
>>> > reason.
>>> >
>>> > We can set up another time to gather if that would be better
>>> for you.
>>> > There is a written policy, but interpretation of it is the
>>> crucial
>>> > factor in its use. We could spend all our time and effort on
>>> splitting
>>> > hairs on that, but our time is more effectively used in other
>>> > endeavors
>>> > as long as everyone is pretty much on the same page about it.
>>> That has
>>> > evolved somewhat over time and is something that is both
>>> complex and
>>> > contextual.
>>> >
>>> > The issues and perspectives involved depend on past history and
>>> > experience, as well as current consensus, which evolved from
>>> those
>>> > historical contingencies. There are a number of issues that
>>> arise from
>>> > the interaction of those factors that are difficult to fully
>>> > articulate
>>> > over email and are best left to the give and take of actual
>>> > discussion.
>>> > I alluded to them better than I described them in my post
>>> from earlier
>>> > today. Suffice to say there's always somebody who thinks they
>>> know
>>> > more
>>> > about what our policy should be than what it actually is. Those
>>> > who are
>>> > willing to participate in these efforts are relatively few.
>>> >
>>> > There's no problem with discussing it in public, in fact that is
>>> > what is
>>> > intended in most cases. However, discussing IMC editorial
>>> policy on IP
>>> > is somewhat akin to asking a bunch of Democrats what they
>>> think of the
>>> > "great job" Bush is doing. It's not at all representative of
>>> reality,
>>> > let alone what the ideal might be.
>>> >
>>> > My own available time is fairly limited until the end of
>>> March, due to
>>> > other obligations. Please feel free to suggest a good time to
>>> meet at
>>> > the IMC if an informal discussion at Crane Alley is not to your
>>> > tastes.
>>> > Email is another option.
>>> >
>>> > If you are more concerned about website design, those issues are
>>> > better
>>> > addressed on IMC-Tech, which handles that among its other
>>> > responsibilities. Dan Blah is working on a major site
>>> redesign at this
>>> > time and I'm sure he could use help with that, since it will
>>> redefine
>>> > our web presence in a significant way while retaining our
>>> historical
>>> > emphasis on news.
>>> >
>>> > That is why I brought up the blog issue again. My personal
>>> feelings
>>> > about blogs are primarily negative, although I can see them
>>> > contributing
>>> > to the IMC model under certain circumstances, so please
>>> disregard my
>>> > opinions on that.
>>> > :)
>>> > Certainly your concerns about fostering a more civil and
>>> reflective
>>> > discourse are important. That has been the goal of our web
>>> editorial
>>> > policy from the beginning, since it sets an example for the
>>> world we
>>> > hope to make, rather than the one we're stuck with now.
>>> > Mike Lehman
>>> >
>>> > Marti Wilkinson wrote:
>>> > > Hi Mike:
>>> > >
>>> > > Danielle did invite me to become a member of the working
>>> group and I
>>> > > am willing to get involved. My only limitations are that I
>>> have
>>> > > classes in Charleston on Tuesday and Thursday evenings. One
>>> of the
>>> > > things I stated on the Illinipundit site is that both the
>>> UCIMC
>>> > and IP
>>> > > moderators have the right to engage in editorial decisions.
>>> > >
>>> > > I have also found the site to be somewhat user-unfriendly
>>> from a
>>> > > design aspect which is one reason why I haven't
>>> participated much on
>>> > > the site lately. Again this is something I'm willing to
>>> address. By
>>> > > addressing the concerns of former IMC posters my intent is
>>> to be
>>> > part
>>> > > of the solution and not the problem. Just simply ignoring a
>>> > criticism
>>> > > isn't always the most effective approach in a discourse.
>>> This is
>>> > > because I believe there are people who can benefit from
>>> > participating
>>> > > in the discussions on both sites.
>>> > >
>>> > > Because the internet is an electronic medium we don't have the
>>> > benefit
>>> > > of seeing the facial expression or body language of
>>> participants.
>>> > > Another downside is that often people are going to feel safe
>>> > engaging
>>> > > in mean behavior online simply because the perception is they
>>> > can get
>>> > > away with it. In many respects we are still navigating
>>> uncharted
>>> > > territory and I see us as the guinea pig generation of
>>> internet
>>> > usage.
>>> > >
>>> > > When a recent story came out in the mainstream press about
>>> a young
>>> > > teenager who took her life as a result of internet cruelty
>>> that
>>> > really
>>> > > hit home for me. Being the mother of a teenage daughter
>>> I've had to
>>> > > talk to her about internet predators and trolls. This is not
>>> > something
>>> > > that my mother had to do. I don't censor my daughters
>>> internet usage
>>> > > or stand over her shoulder constantly, but I do encourage
>>> her to
>>> > > engage in critical thinking and to use common sense. I have to
>>> > admit I
>>> > > am so glad to not be a teenager and I can really feel for my
>>> > daughter
>>> > > sometimes.
>>> > >
>>> > > With all that being said if you wish to add me to the working
>>> > group I
>>> > > will do what I can to help.
>>> > >
>>> > > Peace, Marti
>>> > >
>>> > > On Feb 1, 2008 2:39 PM, Mike Lehman <rebelmike at earthlink.net
>>> > <mailto:rebelmike at earthlink.net>
>>> > > <mailto:rebelmike at earthlink.net
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> <mailto:rebelmike at earthlink.net>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>> > >
>>> > > I saw that same thread and it's nonsense. The last time a
>>> > reply was
>>> > > hidden for content violations of our editorial policy was
>>> > November 10.
>>> > >
>>> > > You also need to follow the website closely in order to
>>> fully
>>> > > appreciate
>>> > > the context within which such decisions are made. About
>>> 99%
>>> > of posts
>>> > > that fall astray of our policy are from anonymous posters.
>>> > I'll note
>>> > > here that the complaining post that Marti quoted here
>>> was by an
>>> > > anonymous poster on IP. In the past, I have observed
>>> comments
>>> > > reflecting
>>> > > the same dismissive, trolling point of view posted
>>> within 5
>>> > minutes or
>>> > > less at both sites. That and extensive past experiences
>>> with
>>> > these
>>> > > sorts
>>> > > of posts indicate that there is someone (or _someones_)
>>> out
>>> > there
>>> > > who is
>>> > > purposefully trying to stir the pot, rile up people,
>>> and get
>>> > them
>>> > > pointing their fingers at "those OTHER people."
>>> > >
>>> > > That said, the anonymous comment that Marti quoted was in
>>> > response
>>> > > to a
>>> > > similar, but less inflammatory claim in a similar vein
>>> by IP
>>> > himself.
>>> > > Knowing it had been a while since such a post was hidden
>>> > here was
>>> > > when I
>>> > > discovered that it had been so long since that had
>>> actually
>>> > happened,
>>> > > making it both am,using and irnoic to read. IP can
>>> wallow in his
>>> > > ignorance, get fooled by Wendy's highly subjective POV on
>>> > the subject
>>> > > and generally stir his own trolls up if he wants to. It is
>>> > clearly at
>>> > > variance with the facts.
>>> > >
>>> > > What I find interesting is that last fall, after we had
>>> pretty
>>> > > much shut
>>> > > down the troll here, he proceeded to go concentrate his
>>> efforts
>>> > > over at
>>> > > IP. Back when Wendy left in a huff last spring, the big
>>> deal
>>> > they made
>>> > > over there was how cruelly unfair our policy was. The
>>> fact is
>>> > > we've had
>>> > > essentially the same policy now for about 5 years. It
>>> works well
>>> > > against
>>> > > those whose sole intent is to discourage thoughtful and
>>> > respectful
>>> > > discourse at UC IMC. The Jack Ryan thing was where all
>>> this
>>> > started,
>>> > > with that character going anonymous after even mention of
>>> > his name was
>>> > > prohibited by our invocation of a software catch for
>>> any post
>>> > > mentioning
>>> > > his name. I'm sure that a few mean-spirited comments
>>> have been
>>> > > caught up
>>> > > by the policy as it has been enforced over the years. In
>>> > fact, in a
>>> > > handful of cases the post -- which did meet the standard,
>>> > BTW -- was
>>> > > restored after someone known to me took credit for it.
>>> > >
>>> > > What is really ironic about this is that IP has now
>>> adopted
>>> > basically
>>> > > the same approach after growing tired of the same crap
>>> we put up
>>> > > with at
>>> > > UC IMC for longer than IP has been in existence. Last
>>> fall, he
>>> > > adopted a
>>> > > selective approach to dealing with such comments by
>>> deleting
>>> > them.
>>> > > Please note that they are no longer visible in any form
>>> that
>>> > I'm aware
>>> > > of on IP. This is in contrast to our more lenient policy
>>> > that allows
>>> > > such posts to be hidden, but accessible to any reader. Our
>>> > policy is
>>> > > actually more liberal at this point than theirs,
>>> although I
>>> > don't
>>> > > really
>>> > > care to compare or to shape our policy to fit theirs.
>>> It was
>>> > exactly
>>> > > that point which Wendy was insisting upon that caused
>>> her to
>>> > leave
>>> > > when
>>> > > it was clear she was the only one who held that sort of
>>> view
>>> > and that
>>> > > the rest of us had no intention of doing so. Of course,
>>> I'm
>>> > still the
>>> > > one that Wendy and the troll both blame. I frankly
>>> don't care.
>>> > >
>>> > > I would be glad to have more people involved in editing.
>>> > Frankly, I
>>> > > think the webpage is a vastly underused resource in
>>> general.
>>> > But,
>>> > > no, I
>>> > > don't think any one is seriously interested in forming our
>>> > editorial
>>> > > policy to resemble IP's.
>>> > >
>>> > > I would ask that Marti just ignore such discussions at IP.
>>> > Quoting
>>> > > what
>>> > > was said here is unlikely to change any minds there and
>>> > would inspire
>>> > > the troll to return here after he's given up bothering
>>> us in the
>>> > > face of
>>> > > his impotence. He used to read the Web list and may soon
>>> > discover this
>>> > > anyway, but let him take his sweet time doing so.
>>> > >
>>> > > IP has his policy and I respect his right to have it.
>>> UC IMC
>>> > has its
>>> > > own, one that evolved through hours of discussion over 8
>>> > years and the
>>> > > input of a number of thoughtful people, most of whom
>>> have now
>>> > > moved on
>>> > > to other endeavors. I still think it serves us well, but I
>>> > have no
>>> > > problem starting another conversation about it so long
>>> as we
>>> > have a
>>> > > clear idea of where it's come from in order to avoid
>>> the trap of
>>> > > excessive idealism about what soon becomes the abusive
>>> posting
>>> > > behavior
>>> > > of a very few disruptive individuals.
>>> > >
>>> > > If people want to have an "anything goes" UC IMC blog, I
>>> > stated quite
>>> > > some time ago I'd be OK with that, but I probably will NOT
>>> > be posting
>>> > > there if there was such a thing. The issue of UC IMC
>>> being a
>>> > "free
>>> > > speech zone" was settled within the first six months or so
>>> > of our
>>> > > existence when we banned Bobby Meade. The first
>>> principle of
>>> > UC IMC
>>> > > editorial policy since then is that it should foster
>>> > thoughtful and
>>> > > respectful discussion that empowers those whose voices are
>>> > silenced in
>>> > > the dominant media. That is exactly what makes us
>>> different
>>> > from IP.
>>> > >
>>> > > Most of the voices at IP are those of people who buy
>>> into the
>>> > > fables and
>>> > > lies of the dominant media. They can tolerate a lot of the
>>> > shrill,
>>> > > inane, and ignorant conversations that go on there
>>> precisely
>>> > because
>>> > > that is the paradigm most there embrace. Time and time
>>> again, UC
>>> > > IMC has
>>> > > found that allowing such POVs to get the upper hand here
>>> > discourages
>>> > > those who have already been disempowered by the dominant
>>> > voices in
>>> > > most
>>> > > of the media.
>>> > >
>>> > > Wendy made this even worse by bragging that she'd violated
>>> > the central
>>> > > tenet of a Indymedia editor's responsibility and, in fact,
>>> > of ANYONE
>>> > > with sys admin privileges on a system that needs to
>>> have secure
>>> > > data --
>>> > > and one that she had just been clearly reminded of when
>>> she
>>> > did --
>>> > > revealing that she had chosen to violate the anonymity of
>>> > certain
>>> > > posters. We are still trying to overcome that issue among
>>> > people who
>>> > > regularly posted here in the past. I don't know all of
>>> > them, but I do
>>> > > know a few because they chose to discuss their concerns
>>> with me.
>>> > >
>>> > > Wendy poisoned the well so badly at UC IMC with her
>>> > violations just
>>> > > before she left that a number of regular posters have just
>>> > recently
>>> > > started to again post, but only so long as they stay
>>> > anonymous, since
>>> > > they haven't started suing their old accounts which still
>>> > exist here.
>>> > > But you will NOT see me revealing them to the world,
>>> here or
>>> > in person
>>> > > to ANYONE. That is the biggest editorial issue we have to
>>> > confront. I
>>> > > think that the only way to do it is through time
>>> healing most
>>> > > wounds and
>>> > > continuation of a editorial policy that treats anonymous
>>> > posters, as
>>> > > well as those with accounts, fairly even if they choose to
>>> > remain
>>> > > anonymous. I think we already do that, but I'd be
>>> willing to
>>> > > reopen that
>>> > > discussion if people want to.
>>> > >
>>> > > But don't believe what you read about it at IP, because
>>> most
>>> > of those
>>> > > who mention it there just don't know or care for much of
>>> > anything
>>> > > other
>>> > > than throwing mud at the IMC.
>>> > > Mike Lehman
>>> > >
>>> > > Danielle Chynoweth wrote:
>>> > > > Hi Marti -
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Would love to have you join the web working group at the
>>> > IMC to help
>>> > > > resolve the user problems with the site and address
>>> editorial
>>> > > > concerns. I have raised similar editorial concerns
>>> in the
>>> > past.
>>> > > I do
>>> > > > not think we should hide off topic posts, only those
>>> that
>>> > cross the
>>> > > > line to abuse, engage is racist or sexist slurs, or
>>> target
>>> > > individuals
>>> > > > for violence.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I have not seen a lot of hiding of off topic posts and
>>> > would ask
>>> > > those
>>> > > > who have raised concerns to provide 5-6 recent
>>> examples they
>>> > > disagree
>>> > > > with.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Some work has been done to create a policy. See hidden
>>> > posts and
>>> > > > summary policy here:
>>> > > > http://www.ucimc.org/hidden
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Danielle
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On Feb 1, 2008 11:00 AM, Marti Wilkinson
>>> > <martiwilki at gmail.com <mailto:martiwilki at gmail.com>
>>> > > <mailto:martiwilki at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:martiwilki at gmail.com>>
>>> > > > <mailto:martiwilki at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:martiwilki at gmail.com>
>>> > <mailto:martiwilki at gmail.com <mailto:martiwilki at gmail.com>>>>
>>> wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I've been engaging in participating in one of the
>>> Rietz
>>> > > debates on
>>> > > > Illinipundit and one of the biggest criticism's that
>>> > the UCIMC
>>> > > > site has it a perceived failure to allow
>>> differences of
>>> > > opinion on
>>> > > > the website. Even though I was able to point out
>>> that
>>> > anyone who
>>> > > > moderates the site has the right to engage in
>>> editorial
>>> > > discretion
>>> > > > someone did post this concern to me.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > *On February 1st, 2008 at 10:36 AM, Anonymous (not
>>> > verified)
>>> > > said:*
>>> > > >
>>> > > > *UIMC allows zero difference of opinion. I am
>>> much more in
>>> > > > agreement in geeral with its poltics than with
>>> this site,
>>> > > but I am
>>> > > > astonished by the likes of ML censoring even the
>>> > slightest of
>>> > > > disagreements and labeling those authors "trolls" as
>>> > if there is
>>> > > > some litmus test. It reminds me of the Stalinists
>>> > sitting in
>>> > > > judgment of their close ideological revals, fellow
>>> > > socialists, as
>>> > > > to whether they were Marxist enough.*
>>> > > >
>>> > > > *While I disagree with much of the conservative
>>> posting at
>>> > > > Illinipundit, I have never had a post deleted here*
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Personally I find the UCIMC site can be so
>>> user-unfriendly
>>> > > > sometimes it makes following what has been posted
>>> > difficult.
>>> > > That
>>> > > > being said I do believe the anonymous poster has
>>> > expressed a
>>> > > valid
>>> > > > and reasonable concern. I would like to offer a
>>> suggestion
>>> > > that we
>>> > > > include specific posting guidelines on the site
>>> that is
>>> > > accessible
>>> > > > to anyone who posts. That way if a post has to be
>>> > deleted at
>>> > > least
>>> > > > whoever is moderating the discussion can have
>>> some backup.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > In addition I think it might be a good idea to
>>> perhaps
>>> > not be so
>>> > > > insistent that posters stay on a specific topic.
>>> Now if
>>> > > someone is
>>> > > > being ugly and abusive then obviously that needs
>>> to be
>>> > > addressed.
>>> > > > That being said the complaint that the IMC fails
>>> to invite
>>> > > debate
>>> > > > is one that I do believe is worth looking into
>>> and if
>>> > this is
>>> > > > something that can be addressed please let me know.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Peace, Marti
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > --
>>> > > > Support Urbana Parks - Vote Yes in February 5th Primary!
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> > > >
>>> > > > _______________________________________________
>>> > > > IMC-Web mailing list
>>> > > > IMC-Web at lists.ucimc.org <mailto:IMC-Web at lists.ucimc.org>
>>> > <mailto:IMC-Web at lists.ucimc.org
>>> <mailto:IMC-Web at lists.ucimc.org>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> > > http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc-web
>>>>
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> IMC-Web mailing list
>>> IMC-Web at lists.ucimc.org
>>>
>>>
>>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc-web
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IMC-Web mailing list
> IMC-Web at lists.ucimc.org
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc-web
>
More information about the IMC-Web
mailing list