[Imc-web] Re: UCIMC Website Posting Guidelines
Marti Wilkinson
martiwilki at gmail.com
Sat Feb 2 00:52:03 CST 2008
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> 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>> 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>>>
> 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>
> > > http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc-web
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/imc-web/attachments/20080202/66f5a7d3/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the IMC-Web
mailing list