[IMC Bombay] IMC BOMBAY/MUMBAI DISCUSSION ON EDITORIAL POLICY

[boud]

IMC BOMBAY/MUMBAI DISCUSSION ON EDITORIAL POLICY


http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-mumbai/2002-July/000089.html
> [IndyMedia Bombay] Minutes of Meeting on 21st July 
> Sanjay Bhangar sanjayb at hotpop.com 
> Thu, 25 Jul 2002 01:52:23 +0530 

We then began our discussion on editorial policy.
Editorial policy needs to be figured out. We discussed the need to form 
a group of editors who look into the content and stuff published 
everyday and remove spam/pornography/slanderous, and abusive articles. 
The editorial team should reserve the right to remove stuff while 
keeping in mind the fact that everything should be transparent and open. 

Aspy raised a theoretical policy issue : what if the VHP decides to 
flood us with 200 new legitimate articles a day? What would we do? A 
question that was raised was- Should people who are subscribed and 
listed only be allowed to publish? We decided that this idea was against 
the basic principles of open publishing. In the case of right-wing 
articles, or articles that advocate racism, opression, etc. but without 
being overtly abusive or slanderous, we decided it would be against the 
principle of open publishing to censor. Instead, we would encourage 
people to use the comments area to further debate and dialogue. However, 
in the case of any one group or individual sending a large amount of 
articles everyday and attempting to monopolize the newswire, our 
reaction should be the same, whatever that group is - it was discussed 
that perhaps if so many articles come in, we could club them all 
together and give them a common link.

We then discussed specific moderation issues - Moderating on the basis 
of what? Offensive stuff.. articles that advocate racism towards a 
particular group? Again, we decided its against the concept of indymedia 
to ban an article of that sort unless it is directly abusive or 
vindictive. For these "middle-ground issues", the editors would have 
discretion, but would be encouraged to use the list to discuss...
One of our goals will be to encourage a culture of debate,dialogue.
Encourage people also to verify their email addresses. (through the 
DadaIMC interface)

More relevant questions raised - Who is a member? who are the decision 
makers? what is the dedcision making policy? is there an expectation for 
a structure? could it turn chaotic? We decided we would deal with 
uncertainty and risk in time in an open manner - we cant have a fixed 
and rigid decision making/ editorial policy so soon but for things to 
start functioning, we need a basic understanding of why we're doing 
this, and a  flexible open policy for people to use and modify even 2 
years down the line. To the question of who is a member - the response 
generally was that you are as much of a member as you want. You decide 
to be as involved as you want to.

...

On the issue of sub-mailing lists, it was decided that we bifurcate into 
one list for discussion about the organization of the IMC, meetings, 
agendas, decisions, editorial policy, decision making, etc. and another 
list to serve as a "newswire" to report news, information about 
protests, etc. For now, everyone on the current list will be 
auto-subscribed to both. Then people can chose to unsubscribe as per 
their preference.
Sub-mailing lists for editorial, tech, etc. can be formed in the future, 
but for now, the "admin" mailing list will be used for all those 
functions.

We went on to discuss the particulars of an editorial group and what 
that job would entail.
We must work on forming a voluntary editorial group willing to go work 
on the site everyday. Editors should have to come for meetings.The 
editor needs to be a neutral person. Policy question that needs to be 
discussed - can you make a VHP person an editor, if he does agree to 
follow principles laid down? The editorial group needs to remain 
completely voluntary and open so anyone can join. Perhaps editors should 
only be appointed at meetings, and if anyone opposes a specific 
appointment, that should be taken to vote. This is an issue that 
requires further discussion.

We also discussed the need to figure out legal issues : stuff we're not 
allowed to publish : advocating anything illegal, advocating illegal 
activity, crime, copyrighted material, "anti national sentiments", are 
some of the legal issues we need to look into. Astaad volunteered to do 
further research on guidelines on the legal issues.=20
We discussed the need extensively to get ourselves aware on legal issues 
and discussed the need to perhaps be in constant touch with a lawyer or 
something that basically keeps us out of trouble. If anyone can help 
with this, it would be much appreciated. We would not want to get too 
paranoid about "legalities", and editors would be strongly encouraged to 
discuss things they are doubtful about on the list.

We decided to put a draft of an editorial policy on the list and 
continue working on it, but get stuff up and continue working on the 
site, as well as we work out the policy.

We disbanded, after having quite a bloody good time at the meeting, 
thanking PUKAR for their hospitality, and hoping that more and more 
people will attend future meetings, and generally be a part of the IMC.