[Imc-web] Re editorial policy

[Mike Lehman]

Chris wrote:
> I was wondering what the editorial policy for the website is, if any. I
> haven't seen it posted anywhere and when I re-enabled "hiding comments"
> I noticed that several hidden comments were concerning supposed
> indiscriminate comment hiding. Most of the flame comments seem to be
> from anonymous posters if that means anything.
>
> I just wondered if the editors would consider drafting a policy to post
> on the website so that people viewing it and posting to it know what
> practice to follow so their comments are shown.
>
> Chris

Chris,
I suspect the post from the person yesterday was somehow related to 
rejiggering  the software settings. I suspect he was unable to read the 
hidden comments then, although it didn't occur to me to check on this 
because his inquiry about it was stuck in moderation (which will 
accompany this reply as I moderate it through.)

There has been some brief discussion about this on the Web list 
periodically in the past, most recently last summer, but no action. I've 
copied from several posts I wrote then below. I'd be glad to pass this 
on to others in several forms or fashions.

Personally, I think those posting what ends up Hidden usually anticipate 
that or, not even caring about that, are simply looking for a post to 
piss on.

Finally, as an organization we badly need to encourage legitimate 
community uses of the website. Print tends to ignore it (I suspect in 
large part because of Bob's views that it is not edited) except for 
Brian. RFU makes a little use of it. Shows uses it for announcements, 
but nothing else. Others pretty much don't ever think to posting things 
on it; I gave up bearing the burden of reposting community happenings 
that people don't ever consider postings there, because they think 
sending to an email list reaches those they want to inform. It would be 
a lot easier to ignore the rude or profane posts if they were buried 
among legitimate users.

There's lots more to say about this, but it would work better in a face 
to face meeting of those interested, which sort of trailed off after 
2007 when we last addressed it.
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?


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 intense 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 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

Then after a reply from Josh:

Josh,

The "policy" as it was when handed to Web is somewhere on:

http://archive.ucimc.org/

[still] 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 editing 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).