[Imc-aotearoa-ed] Re: Hidden articles, reply to Rovin and Ken

[imc-aotearoa-ed@lists.indymedia.org]

Hi,

> For discussion:
> The promotion of an nonexistent threat 
> by strike-free.org  9:54am Mon Jan 13 '03
> http://www.indymedia.org.nz/front.php3?article_id=2752&group=webcast
> He is an agreed spammer but I think we could leave this one
> up as it actually has some information in it.

Remember that when someone is a 'spammer', we are not obligated to hide any of 
their posts - they should be treated on a case by case basis. The only bonus 
with declaring someone a spammer is that we get to shoot first and discuss 
later. They still have to break the ed pol in some way.

> Rovin' said:
> >> can't hide stuff because it's not geographically
> relevant - suggest a change to the ed policy first. <<
> 
> The policy empowers us to hide stuff that is off-topic - I
> agree this needs to be defined more clearly but since this
> is Aotearoa IMC I think posts with no geographical
> relevance could count as off-topic.
> 
> I have proposed a change to ed policy on the AIM list. So
> far no reaction for or against. Now what? I propose we
> debate the wording of new policy on this list, then when
> consensus is reached here, email AIM quoting the changed
> sections and explaining the reasons for the changes. We
> start implementing the changes immediately UNTIL someone on
> AIM raises objections (if they do), in which case the
> changes are suspended until consensus is reached on the AIM
> list. 

You probably haven't got any reaction cause most people are still on holiday 
and have intermitant or no access to email [like me and clare]. 

I am firmly against this, as it is a technological problem, and can be fixed 
while still allowing overseas people to post. All that we need is an overseas 
wire - which several other codebases use. We should be moving to either 
SFactive or DadaImc in the near future, so I would just put up with it for now. 
It is possible for multiple wires in the standard active, but no one has showed 
me how to do it. 

Besides arguing what is and is not relevent would take forever :)

And regarding the method of altering the policy, I think that the method you 
just put up is quite sane, but I would:

- Allow a week for dissent on the main list, it's not really that long in the 
scheme of things.
- Post a good description on exactly why we are doing these things, so we can 
avoid the majority of dissent. :)

> >> We should email him about his inference that Helen is
> a lesbian, and obvious intention that this is an insult or
> even relevant. I don't have the address just now. <<
> 
> See my email conversation with him, posted just now. I
> posted it from my new address so someone might have to
> approve it.

I'll email him in the weekend, he might actually listen to me or Duncan.
 
> Posters like DK can probably contribute usefully if
> encouraged to stick to a topic, reference their claims and
> tone down their language. Having tried to reason with him,
> I think this is best done by hiding inappropriate postings.
> 
> Unlike some in other Indymedia's I'm not advocating
> ideological censorship (hiding stuff for being
> 'right-wing', or 'conspiracy theory'), rather I think we
> need to define some objective criteria for what qualifies
> as journalism (separation of facts and opinions; references
> to evidence; concise, to-the-point language etc). 

But doesn't that go totally against the idea of open publishing?

> A 'Writing for Indy Tutorial' above the HTML one on the
> front page would be excellent. Sam Buchanen could write an
> excellent one (I went to a conference workshop he took on
> the subject), anyone in contact with him?

That would be cool. The welington indy people probably know him.

seeyas
finn