[Imc-web] Re: UCIMC Website Posting Guidelines
dan blah
blah at chambana.net
Sat Feb 2 17:34:45 CST 2008
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
>
More information about the IMC-Web
mailing list