[Imc-web] Re: UCIMC Website Posting Guidelines

[Mike Lehman]

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>> 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
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc-web
>