[Imc-web] comment hidden from thread http://ucimc.org/content/july-29-help-us-demonstrate-against-persecution-undocumented-immigrants ?
Mike Lehman
rebelmike at earthlink.net
Wed Aug 11 12:51:45 CDT 2010
Josh,
The "policy" as it was when handed to Web is somewhere on:
http://archive.ucimc.org/
Not working right now. I can find it easily once it's back up, IIRC.
Essentially, what exists was from when Steering dealt with editing on
the website. Sometime around 2003-2004, Steering got tired of dealing
with this and devolved it to those interested in the subject, so at that
point Web was considered essentially like the Public i, Video, etc, were
and how RFU was planned to be: it was up to Web to promulgate an
editorial policy and apply it.
There was some documentation of changes made for several years after
that, mostly on email, but by 2005, I was pretty much it. We briefly and
inconclusively started 3 or 4 times on a complete rewrite between 2003
and 2007, with the last results as noted previously. In the end, it's
been mostly me as far as policy editing is concerned, although a number
of people have the same access, but concentrate on editorial work.
What is exercised currently as far as policy edituing is concerned
focuses on what Web was handed to deal with by Steering: a persistent troll.
Note very carefully that I use the singular in referring to the problem.
For the most part, disagreeable posts tend to be limited, with that
exception. Other problems are pretty much clearcut and far more rare.
This is based on the history of dealing with this issue on a frequent
basis -- repeatedly. Some things never change and having one very
irritated commenter who specializes in attacking the IMC and users of
the website is one.
There is another common characteristic of these attacks that was one of
the specific concerns of Steering, and more generally in Indymedia in
various forms. That is specific, personal attacks on known Indymedia
journalists. Brian tends to be the one currently who finds this at
present, but there is a lengthy list of others who've also faced this.
From personal observation, many of those attacked no longer post under
their screen names or do so only rarely now. This takes a toll on users
of the website.
FWIW, at the time of the fire, this happened to me as part of this
pattern of behavior, although it was periodically a target in the past.
Whatever the cause of the fire, presuming one wants to arrive at
something more specific than "arson," there is some pretty extensive
documentation on the interest of someone in using those circumstances
for intimidation. No one had to set the fire to do that, just take
advantage of the opportunity presented. I bring this up not to say, oh
well poor me or that what I describe is purely a coincidence -- it very
well could be they aren't connected by anything other than that either
could be intimidation, but we can be certain that one of them was -- but
to illustrate some of the background on the situation. For every Brad
Will, as tragic as that was, I'm sure he'd agree that there are a 1,000
Indymedia journalists who face lesser intimidation in various forms.
And as far as any blog is concerned, it should be within the realm of
easy application to already supported UC IMC server applications -- or
whatever the tech-speak is on this. I'm only marginally interested in
that, but I think if others are interested it would be a good addition
to solve at least one issue. We can simply ask the troll to take his BS
to chat and not have to worry too much about the issue on the actual IMC
news and its discussion side of things any more. IMO, any way.
Mike Lehman
On 8/11/2010 11:38 AM, Josh King wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> This was pretty much what I expected. I would very much like to carry
> this conversation forward, given both that the website is one area where
> I would like to see more development and activity and since I will be
> operating remotely it is an area of the IMC in which I can still
> actively participate easily. Do we have a copy of that 2003 policy that
> we can use as a starting point to get the discussion going?
>
> There are some ideas I've been musing over with regards to the eventual
> overhaul of the website, specifically about enhancements to make it
> easier for editors to find and discuss abuses, streamlining of the
> newsfeed, and possibly a collection of IMC active member blogs, either
> hosted through the site itself, separate sites hosted through
> Chambana.net, or blogs hosted on other services. Such a 'planet'-style
> blog feed could possibly fill the purpose of the blog you mention
> without splitting our resources (to be clear, the individual posts would
> be aggregated through the site, not just links to individual blogs).
>
> On 08/11/2010 06:21 PM, Mike Lehman wrote:
>
>> Stuart and Josh,
>> The hidden comments were made by the long-time troll. I got fed up with
>> his well-documented racism. It always starts innocently enough by being
>> just his irritating and repetitive obsession with others obeying the
>> law, then grows into more blatant crap. I'm fed up with him.
>>
>> On the other hand, it's good that others are finally using the website
>> to make comments and making it something more than Brian's stories that
>> said troll will then be the only reply.
>>
>> To read the hidden posts, you need only be logged in on the website,
>> then click where it says Hidden Posts on the page with the original
>> article. They're all there.
>>
>> On the other hand, a reply would simply be feeding this particular
>> troll. He is truly uninterested in the substance of any reply, simply
>> using it as a diving board for his soliloquy about the "evil" that
>> Indymedia website users encourage. Why that doesn't apply to him as an
>> obsessed IMC-abuser is, of course, unclear. In any case, since Stuart is
>> advocating for people who might have technically broken some law,
>> whatever the injustice of the rest of the story, there will never be any
>> substantive discussion with him.
>>
>> As for documentation, I've got a series of documents that I gathered
>> together from the last time we began this discussion, in 2007 just
>> before the arson of my house (related? Who knows?) and other info
>> collected since then. This was when the civilian Police Oversight Board
>> discussion was instense and Wendy thought we should run the IMC's
>> website like the late IP, then compromised the respect for anonymity
>> required of editors, then left. The discussion petered out at that
>> point, although it was handed to Web to deal with.
>>
>> Essentially, given the lack of interest by others and the fact that
>> editing for abusive postings on the website have largely fallen to me
>> over the last 5 years, things have ended up in my lap and I've dealt
>> with them on the basis of prior art and example.
>>
>> So, any policy discussion needs to begin on the basis of carrying
>> through with the significant revisions made to the policy since the last
>> time it was codified (like in 2003?) as well as any changes that people
>> would want to make. There is no single document that documents our
>> policy at this point and would be available to simply post. If people
>> want to start this discussion again, I'd be glad to help get the
>> discussion started provided we intend to carry it through to completion
>> if it's begun again.
>>
>> BTW, I would argue that the neatest solution to the conflicting
>> interests inherent in operating the IMC website with a functional
>> editorial policy that truly encourages those without a voice in the
>> dominant media would be to establish a blog (and, no, the IMC website is
>> NOT a blog) as an associated venture. That way the trolls have a place
>> where virtually anything goes, people who want to engage such posters
>> can do so freely, and the IMC website itself can continue serving
>> marginalized media users without pandering to those who object to our
>> very existence.
>> Mike Lehman
>>
>> On 8/11/2010 4:16 AM, Josh King wrote:
>>
>>> There seem to be a number of comments hidden on that post, but none of
>>> them seem to have editorial reasons attached. Is there any reason not to
>>> unhide the comment that Stuart mentions?
>>>
>>> Hey Mike, I'd like to post the site editorial policy on the wiki. Sorry,
>>> I know this has been asked about a million times, but can you point me
>>> in the direction of any documentation of it?
>>>
>>> On 08/11/2010 10:59 AM, Stuart Levy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi. There was starting to be an immigration discussion in the thread
>>>> http://ucimc.org/content/july-29-help-us-demonstrate-against-persecution-undocumented-immigrants
>>>> I'd written a note (titled "If we admitted ten percent..."),
>>>> and an anonymous person had replied to it, some time Sunday 8/8.
>>>> I'd like to reply to his reply, but can't find it now. Was it hidden?
>>>> Though I disagree with what he said, it seemed on-topic, etc.
>>>> If the poster himself withdrew it, that's fine, but if it was hidden
>>>> by an editor for some reason, I (as the originator of the thread)
>>>> would rather see it return to the living.
>>>>
>>>> cheers
>>>>
>>>> Stuart
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> IMC-Web mailing list
>>>> IMC-Web at lists.chambana.net
>>>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/imc-web
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> IMC-Web mailing list
>>> IMC-Web at lists.chambana.net
>>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/imc-web
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IMC-Web mailing list
>> IMC-Web at lists.chambana.net
>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/imc-web
>>
>
More information about the IMC-Web
mailing list