[Imc-web] Workers Defend Their Rights in Wisconsin & Ohio

Tue Mar 8 17:43:33 CST 2011

Chris,
Admittedly, that would be the ideal if there were any way to easily do 
that at this point. There isn't any easy way to do it, even if I could 
get a copy of the last written version from the site archives, so here's 
how I see what's needed.

First of all, I am uncomfortable with writing down something that by 
default is essentially my policy, not something arrived at by consensus, 
although it is based on consensus previously arrived at in the past. 
Since 2005, I've been very interested in there actually being a group 
that arrives at these decisions, rather than just me due to lack of 
general interest in the problem of abusive posting behavior. There were 
changes made before then that were never codified in writing, for 
instance. I still respect the intent of those changes, but what we need 
going forward is a policy that truly reflects current consensus, rather 
than a ghostly presence that I've been breathing life into for years 
after others lost interest in the topic.

I'd much rather describe the abuses and problems, describe what I've 
done about them over the last 6 years, and -- perhaps -- suggest what a 
functional Web group should address and may want to change. But the 
decisions that follow should be those of a functioning Web editorial 
group, not just me. A "real community site" has that as a basic requirement.

The issue of website content is also intimately related to the fact that 
relatively few in the community use the site, even when it's a "slap 
your forehead, why isn't that stuff on UC IMC?" moment. In part, I think 
that is because so much of the rest of the IMC media presence is 
stronger than the website's. At one point, I made an effort to keep up 
with what was happening and should be posted on the website, but -- once 
again --  that still amounted to the way I see things, not an actual IMC 
policy, unless people really want to defer to my judgment. Strangely 
enough, that works until there is something that bothers them and then 
they want to briefly have a say, without understanding the full back 
story and context  to the decisions I've made. An active Web group would 
have that context.

The website as currently set up probably has some sort of functionality 
for collective editorial decision making, but we have no policy to 
implement that with, which I think is the general way to go here in 
order to better include more people in a decision making editorial process.

And with relatively few legitimate users, those few who abuse anonymous 
posting with such intent want to make something they disagree with into 
their own counter website via their comments have become a significant 
problem. The very few complaints I've seen are from this handful of 
trolls who are very identifiable, other than the fact that they're 
anonymous. It's part of being a troll to hurl such accusations.  I used 
to be more selective about dealing with them, hiding only things that 
are clearly out of bounds. But over the last couple of years, this 
seemed to only encourage them to up the ante.

When it got to persistent, blatant racism with them, I finally drew the 
line and now promptly take them to the woodhouse -- no matter what they 
have to say. They're just fishing for a chance to start the process 
again, as I often in the past did by allowing them to resume posting 
until they again started puncheding the buttons to get a reaction. I 
made the decision that is not going to happen again with them, they had 
their chance. My patience is at an end with them. If someone else thinks 
they represent anything of significance beyond trolling, they're welcome 
to change this ad hoc policy to something written, after hearing why I 
made those decisions so they don't come to editing and dealing with the 
trolls from a state of naivety.

I will note that it has been years since a registered user created a 
significant problem, other than the ad spammers who are so clueless they 
think they have to register to post their crap. Those are like shooting 
fish in a barrel and there is no controversy in deleting that crap and 
blocking such accounts when it appears. But anonymous commenting has 
been widely abused by a very few, who actually are so obsessed with 
doing so they hang around for years.

And anyone who has a clue on the internet knows that complaints about 
editorial policy should be taken up with the editors, not repeatedly 
inserted as the coda to comments they clearly know are headed for File 
13. The Web group's email is available and the list archives can easily 
be checked to determine that, for all the reflexive gnashing of teeth 
they exhibit, they almost never see my decisions as important enough to 
send an email inquiry to find out what the issue actually is. But they 
are happy to come back for more trolling. Funny how that works.

Whining up a storm in random comments seems to suit them better for some 
not too hard to understand reason. They're welcome to take their 
comments elsewhere.

Maybe people want something different? I have no problem with that. But 
with something different comes responsibility for the rest. I'm happy to 
entertain complaints and have done so when they are communicated to me 
in a somewhat reasonable fashion. On the other hand, my heart has turned 
to concrete in terms of tolerance for the few who seem to need to get a 
life, rather than spend time trolling IMC because they don't like what 
we do here.

I want someone else to deal with this, not to randomly and occasionally 
micromanage what I've done for so long because no one else was 
interested in it. What happened before is that once such a complaint was 
addressed, often at length, the critics disappear and I end up still 
carrying the load and catching whatever grief there is for editing. 
Those doing the work should make these decisions, not those who are only 
intermittently interested in this work. In some ways, this parallels the 
issues with Finance, where a few people gripe a lot about things, 
although they actively avoid any actual participation in the process in 
order to better understand it or actually help with the work.

That is the reason why I want a Web group actually stand up to function 
and I'll pass them the hot potato, along with a whole bunch of material 
I feel is improper to post publicly, because the trolls -- who clearly 
read our public archives -- can exploit it to evade the efforts to 
prevent them from grinding their tired and rusty axes here to no point.
Mike Lehman

On 3/8/2011 1:37 PM, Chris Ritzo wrote:
>
> I really have no interest in changing it, but rather to communicate 
> more about it. Whether its anonymous posters wondering about the hide 
> policy or Americorps members or others who may not even know one 
> exists. If this is a real comnunity site, then ppl need to know what 
> the parameters are.
>
>> On Mar 8, 2011 9:34 AM, "Mike Lehman" <rebelmike at earthlink.net 
>> <mailto:rebelmike at earthlink.net>> wrote:
>>
>> Chris,
>> As I've noted several times before, I'd be glad to set down with 
>> folks and lay out where things have been, where they are, and what 
>> needs to be done to update the old written editorial policy. Still 
>> waiting to hear from those interested, though.
>>
>> Effectively, everyone else left the bag with me in about 2005. The 
>> old policy is buried  in the inaccessible archived site (at least it 
>> was inaccessible the last several times that the question has been 
>> asked.)
>>
>> I know it's the fashion at certain IMCs to not worry too much about 
>> editorial policy, essentially, anything goes. However, that has never 
>> been the case with UC IMC in the 10+ years the website has been in 
>> existence. That can change to whatever people want it to be, but in 
>> the meantime I only have precedent to go on.
>>
>> In the absence of interest by others in taking on this 
>> responsibility, I've been handling it, based on what the policy was 
>> and the flexibility that was always built into the policy to adapt to 
>> the persistent problems that accompany running a website that defends 
>> otherwise marginalized interest and opinions.
>>
>> I have no intention of asking any particular thing about a rewritten 
>> policy, other than that it continue to observe the broad parameters 
>> generally required of  Indymedia network editorial policy and that it 
>> actually be a functioning working group, rather than a few people who 
>> take different roles as we currently have.
>>
>> On the other hand, it would be irresponsible to simply walk away from 
>> it, which is what pretty much left me in this position in the first 
>> place. Until a Web group is actively interested in managing the 
>> website, I'm willing to continue. However, the very worst policy is 
>> one established by the parameters of what people want to occasionally 
>> complain about from time to time. That is what happened the last time 
>> an attempt was made to deal with this in 2007.
>>
>> In this particular case, however, the policy is pretty clear and 
>> succinct, so I'll write it out here again in rough form.
>>
>> Stories promoted to Feature status should be those that are 
>> relevantly local to UC IMC. This may mean the story is a local one or 
>> that the author seems to be local (in order to account for those 
>> anonymous stories that we cannot necessarily confirm are local), but 
>> who may be writing on a theme or topic that may not necessarily be 
>> local. This does not mean that all stories posted on the Local 
>> Newswire qualify. Many may, but clearly not all will.
>>
>> There are also rare cases where a non-local story is relevant enough 
>> we decide to feature it here. That was the case with the killing of 
>> Brad Will in Oaxaca a few years ago, where we reposted the detailed 
>> NYC IMC story on this with a brief introduction I wrote.
>>
>> The fact that stories we Feature here are automatically syndicated to 
>> US and global IMC sites should also be taken into consideration. For 
>> instance, sometimes we feature stories that are strictly UC IMC 
>> relevant, but really have no relevance to those it would be 
>> syndicated to. There are ways to do those so they don't syndicate, 
>> but this is usually not done, I suppose because people aren't aware 
>> of how to do that.
>>
>> It's also the case that anyone who has editorial access MUST be on 
>> the Web list. If they're not, then those who granted that access need 
>> to follow-up with them and get them signed up. Seems obvious to me, 
>> but the lack of a written policy to refer to is a problem, I agree.
>>
>> Again, I'm just waiting to throw this in someone else's lap, but that 
>> will happen when it's clear that people want to take the ball and run 
>> with it. Call the meeting and I'll be there to explain where things 
>> stand and to then pass the baton.
>> Mike Lehman
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3/8/2011 8:42 AM, Chris Ritzo wrote:
>> >
>> > Maybe you should post the editorial policy online. Wha...
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IMC-Web mailing list
>> IMC-Web at lists.chambana.net <mailto:IMC-Web at lists.chambana.net>
>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/imc-web
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> =======
> Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
> (Email Guard: 7.0.0.21, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.17060)
> http://www.pctools.com 
> <http://www.pctools.com/?cclick=EmailFooterClean_51>
> ======= 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/imc-web/attachments/20110308/713bd355/attachment-0001.html>