[Imc-aotearoa-ed] the roving catchup email... please read - don't bin

[roving]

===CONTROVERSIAL STORIES===
We need to clarify whether we will hide an article which is
subsequently shown to be incorrect. Let me remind you of an earlier
problem: After Sept. 11th several networks showed Palestinians yahooing 
in the streets - supposedly in joy at the US's pain. Amoung the  stories
on IMC countering the authenticity of the fottage were those claiming it
was old 1991 fottage being re-aired. Global-IMC contacted reuters and
associated press who denied this and said the fottage was genuine. IMC
responded by writting a response on the newswire stating this. They
stubbornly refused to take down the original post - even though they
admitted they felt it was incorrect.

The point of this story? We 'the collective' are not the authors of
content on the site. We only serve to organise the site and fascilitate
it's growth and usefullness. (Where possible members of the collective
will also be gathering first-hand stories to publish.) So - I do not
believe we should get into issues of editing or hiding stories which we
believe are innacurate. We can simply agree as a collective and make a
collective comment to the article stating our collective views.

===TITLE CHANGING===
On the 'title' issue. I actually agree with finn that in theory we 
should not change the titles. However we are responsible for the ease with

which people can use the site. So two things can clash

1. (From aims) We AIM to open access to media technology so all groups can
speak for themselves.

2. (From policy and philosophy) To preserve the quality of the website as
a useful media resource.

I suggest we change the publish page as outlined in my email a while back
and see if that helps.

the title - What is your post about?

the summary - What are the main issues in this post? (include the duration
of the piece if you are publishing audio or video)

the article - if you haven't yet, please read our <ed policy> Editorial
Policy <>

===Violence===
We do not have anything in our policy which authorises us to
hide posts advocating violence in general (only if we see it as a personal
attck)

===Innocent until proven guilty===
I agree here with Ken. I would *like* us to go into articles which name
people whoes guilt has not been proven. Perhaps we could say we will hide
names not already in the public arena of people who's safety may be
endangered by being named. This would include the Dow Chemicals Guy but
not Constable Abbott. Does that sound reasonable? If so it's another thing
to work into the policy.

==='ANTI-SEMITIC' ARTICLE===

I do not beliebve this should be removed unless we are now enacting our
ban on off topic articles from corporate media. It is a coherent article
with several comments eluding to it being a fake. Good to keep people on
their toes.

===DOW CHEMICALS===
Does anyone know of a reasonable independent and reliable source who we
could follow this up with. If we can find some substance to it it would be
great - and yes we should think about a feature. I wouldn't like to focus
on this guy though.

cheers - roving


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com