[Imc] the future of the imc website
Paul Riismandel
p-riism at uiuc.edu
Thu Jan 10 07:36:29 UTC 2002
This little treatise ended up being longer than I first intended when I
started writing it. But I think it successfully encapsulates my thinking on
the subject. I hope you'll take some time to read it and consider the
issues at hand. Perhaps you'll disagree with all or part of it. If so,
please offer thoughts, ideas and arguments. Thanks.
----
Tonight the IMC Tech Group decided to do a test installation of the website
software that the Philly IMC (http://www.phillyimc.org) uses, we call it
PhillySlash, which seems to be more stable code that is easier to work with.
This code offers several features and advantages over the current website
software (Active), but the one that interests me most is that it allows for
a categorized newswire. This categorization feature interests me because I
think it might help us resolve some of our problems and controversies over
postings on our newswire.
The Problems:
Currently our website's newswire is just one big stack of stories in
reverse chronological posting order. There is no priority or
sorting. This means that a repost of a story from the Nation gets stacked
in with a locally written story by an IMCista about labor troubles in
Decatur. It also means that stories by so-called IMC "spammers," who post
their stories to many or all IMC websites, also share this space. This
latter type of poster has been the impetus for much discussion at the
steering group lately and was the reason why the IMC's Website Appropriate
Use Policy (http://urbana.indymedia.org/website_policy.php3) and Abuse
Abatement Policy (http://urbana.indymedia.org/abuse_policy.php3) were
written and passed. However, even with such policies in place, there is
still not consensus on how to deal with different posters/"spammers."
Part of the problems with the "spammers" comes from the fact that their
postings tend towards proselytizing and conspiracy theories, which some
people fear gives some website visitors (especially those less familar with
the IMC concept) the impression that the IMC website is filled with
not-so-credible information. When there are many of these posts with a
given time frame then they can take up a lot of space on the newswire on
the front page, which has the potential to dilute the impact of the stories
posted by local IMCistas, or give the impression that the IMC is mostly
about conspiracy theories about the pope and aliens.
This problem is exacerbated by the fact that "spammers" tend not to be
local, and frequently don't leave e-mail addresses or they use
aliases. This means that there is very little way for us to dialogue with
them and reach some kind of cooperative solution. The fact that most
spammers are not local and do not post information of specifically local
interest or topics leads to the argument that people who have little
interest, involvement or investment in our IMC or community are unfairly
exploiting our resources. The fact that these "spammers" post the same
message to many or all of the local IMC sites--often with no regard for
local languages (see
http://www.mexico.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=1489)--only further
demonstrates an apparent disregard for the volunteers who keep those local
IMCs going.
When these posts stack up and move content produced locally off the front
page newswire column, then it seems like local authors are being done a
disservice as their work gets buried in the newswire. There is the fear
that as the spamming problem worsens it will become a significant
disincentive for local citizen-journalists to bother posting to the
newswire, since such posts will just get buried anyway.
And yet the problem is not necessarily just with "spammers." A lot of
"syndicated" or "republished" content from major progressive sources gets
put on our newswire too. The names, like Molly Ivins and Ralph Nader, and
sources, like commondreams.org, are more well-known and respected than the
"spammers" but yet the postings nonetheless have a similar effect. They
take up space that might otherwise be used for stories by common
citizen-journalists who don't already have columns in national magazines.
As someone who frequently checks our website, I can say that I am often
frustrated to see a sea of republished content of all stripes and little or
no local stories. While I can see the value in spreading well-written
progressive content around the web, frankly I can go to commondreams myself
to see their articles. But where else can I go to see the grassroots news
for Champaign-Urbana?
Our Present Solution -- Not so Effective:
Right now we primarily deal with the big problem cases -- those "spammers"
who post very frequently and sometimes very offensively. The only thing we
can do is either "hide" their posts in a hidden section of the newswire, or
delete them altogether. Appropriately, these tactics are reserved for only
the most blatant abuses, and still many folks are reticent to apply
them. The debate over this approach brings up very core and controversial
issues of censorship and control, cooperation and sharing, and
democracy. I don't doubt that the very semantics of it -- the HIDING of
posts sure sounds like censorship-- adds fuel to the fire.
And yet, the problem is barely solved at all. Check the newswire on the
front page right now and tell me how many stories you can identify that
seem to have anything to do with Urbana, or even Illinois, or are by
identifiably local authors. At this moment I count 4 out of 20 -- just 20%.
But are we to hide the other 16 posts? Gosh, I hope not.
A Possible Solution -- Categorization:
I've given a lot of thought about this problem lately and how it might be
tackled. I've tried to listen hard to the discussions had in the Steering
Group about it, and pay close attention to the objections raised against
"hiding" posts. Talking with Ellen I think we've come up with a simple
system that might help make the site more usable and yet limit how much
anyone needs to be hidden.
If you look at the Philly IMC you'll see that there are two newswires on
the right hand side of the page. One is labeled "top news" and the other
is labeled "top editorials," which arguably makes it a little easier to
find what you're looking for. I don't actually recommend using these two
categories. There are very legitimate disagreements and debates over what
constitutes "news" vs. "editorials," or whether there in fact is a
difference between them, and if the IMC mov't wants to perpetuate this
division. I personally don't think we have much to gain by having this debate.
However, I do strongly recommend the use of categories. I think we can use
categories that get at the heart of the problems cites. I'm not talking
about subject categories like "Arts," "Politics" or
"Entertainment." Rather, if we look at the content which we want to
somehow privilege it has less to do with the specific content, but rather
how it arrives at our site. It's about local vs.not-local, original vs.
republished. It's not mere "local news," but stories that are posted by
people in our community -- especially stories that wouldn't gain nearly so
much exposure without the U-C IMC website.
So, instead of hiding posts, what if we had two newswires, each with its
own space on the front page, with the amount of space defined by
priority. To start, I suggest the headings to be "stories from our
community" and "republished stories" -- I'd argue that most of the
non-local content is actually republished, either from other sites, or from
other IMCs (though this could stand testing). There are currently 20
spaces for stories on the front page. As a matter of prioirty I'd give 15
to "community" stories and 5 to republished stories. Of course anyone
interested in exploring either category further could click through to the
appropriate newswire that would take up the whole page.
We could add categories from there, though I'd argue for keeping the number
of categories under five, since with more than that things get more complex
rather than simpler. I'd add two categories: "from the IMC network" and
"uncategorized." the "IMC network" category is for stuff that gets posted
by members of other IMCs (who identify themselves as such) or get posted by
one of the global collectives (such as the "IMC Newsblast" collective). I
think these posts deserve some priority over content from commondreams or
Gary Larrabee, but below local stuff. The uncategorized category is
exactly that -- some items won't clearly be from the community, but aren't
clearly anything else, either. With these four categories I'd argue for
the following space on the front page: 12 slots for "community," and 2
each for the others, each with their own full newswire that one can click to.
How to Categorize?
The Philly IMC solves this problem by requiring all posts to be moderated
before appearing on the newswire. Personally, I oppose this "gatekeeper"
approach. The immediate posting of stories is the real strength of the
newswire, especially during big news events like the FTAA or SOA. Instead,
I think the poster should be asked to categorize her story when she posts
it. While I'm certain not everyone will comply, I'd hope that a majority
of users would be respectful.
But given that some mistakes will be made and that a small few posters will
be purposely misleading, there should also be some "editing" of the site by
IMC volunteers who can put stories into appropriate categories. This might
even be to a particular poster's advantage if she selected "uncategorized"
but a reviewer thinks it's a "community" post.
Yes, this would be a little more work than is currently expended on the
website (mostly by me), but it also opens up an opportunity for more people
to have a hand in it, which can only benefit the IMC and be more consistent
with the way we want to do things. I also think the result would be worth it.
Under this approach a possible "spammer" can still post to our website, but
he has to fight for space with the likes of Molly Ivins and "Between the
Lines," but doesn't take away valuable front page space from Peter
Miller. If a particular spammer is a real problem we still have our
Appropriate Use policy to back us up. And still, good republished content
can still make it onto our site, exposing our visitors to progressive
voices that they might not have read--how much of the local population do
you think has never even heard of The Progressive?
Importantly, website visitors will be immediately exposed to more of the
stories and content that WE spend most of our time and effort to producing
and facilitating -- stories by local citizen-journalists covering the
events, ideas and thoughts that got left out at the News-Gazzette, Daily
Illini, WCIA, etc, etc. Can you think of a better incentive to a new
citizen-reporter than to see your story immediately published and STAY
THERE, in good company with other citizen-journalists' stories?
What To Do?
These are all suggestions--an outline for a plan, but not a full
proposal. There needs to be thoughtful inclusive discussion about the
future of the U-C IMC website.
For better or worse our website was put on line with little discussion or
debate about how it should run, what it's goals are, and such. We've been
lucky in that it actually runs pretty well and have had few controversies
over it, especially compared to other IMCs. But as more apparent problems
face us we do need to be more decisive in determining the site's future.
I think this discussion is too important to simply be left to the Steering
Group. Minimally it should be opened up to the entire IMC membership...
and beyond. We all need to think about how openness and democracy can be
sustained in our little corner of cyberspace if we actually expect it to be
there.
The IMC-Tech group will attempt to foster discussion, deliberation and
debate on this, but cannot and should not be singularly responsible for the
outcome. We need thoughts and ideas for how this should happen. Please
consider this my invitation to anyone who cares to contribute.
More information about the IMC
mailing list