[Imc-aotearoa-ed] and then again . . .

[Philipa Adam]

>Hi all,
>
>Maybe it's time to revise (in a very low key way) our ed policy.

I think this is a good idea.  it seems that the ed. policy is working
well (as far as it goes) and that we could sort of evolve it to cover
things that are starting to happen. when was the current ed. policy
written? by whom? how?

 For
>instance this may be a wise thing to put in:
>
>- Posts which are obviously incorrect or misleading. This includes
>attempts to spread disinformation or to impersonate another
>individual.

i like this idea.  i wonder how we would define "misonformation"?  do
we currently use a specific source to verify information?

>
>I really like the Melbourne ed pol:
>
>Probs requiring notification:
>
>- Posts the author has requested hidden.
>- Posts which are obviously incorrect or misleading. This includes
>attempts to spread disinformation or to impersonate another
>individual.
>- Posts that incite violence against disempowered members of the
>community
>- Posts which use language, imagery, or other forms of communication
>whose sole purpose is to promote racism, fascism, xenophobia,
>homophobia, sexism, able-ism, ageism or any other form of
>discrimination.
>- Persistent nuisance posts to the newswire or comments sections.
>- Posts that are deemed to be devoid of content or analysis and
>appear to be published with the sole purpose of disruption.
>
>What do ppl think about this? 

i think it is a really good idea.

We do need a process doc first though
>eh.
>
>finn