[IndyMedia Bombay] newswire vs mailing lists

[boud]

<cross-post imc-mumbai, new-imc, since new-imc people may have
clearer opinions on this than me>

hi again,
 
it was written in:
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-mumbai/2002-July/000065.html

> 6. PUKAR @ IndyMedia
> (Sanjay Bhangar and Shekhar Krishnan)
> Bulletins of events/protests/meetings/discussions, interesting 
> articles, and updates on the progress being made with the IMC Mumbai 
> at PUKAR, Comet Media Foundation and with other organisations 
> involved in the IndyMedia network. We hope that other NGOs, resource 
> centres, and collectives can post their own news to the IMC Mumbai 
> list-serv to develop it as a networking tool across the city region.
> _____
> 
> "PUKAR @ IndyMedia" is an information service managed jointly by 
> PUKAR and the Bombay Independent Media Centre (IMC), and is broadcast 
> on e-mail through the Bombay IndyMedia list-serv. It purpose is to 
> disseminate news, opinions, articles, and information about events in 
> Mumbai, and serve as a networking tool for activists, journalists, 
> students, media makers. Posting and forwarding of information by 
> PUKAR @ IndyMedia does not construe any connection with, or 
> endorsement by either PUKAR or the Bombay IMC of the groups, 
> organisations or individuals from whom the messages have originated, 
> unless otherwise mentioned. To join the Bombay IndyMedia list-serv, 
> please visit http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-mumbai. 
> To post information directly to the network, please send your e-mails 
> to <imc-mumbai@lists.indymedia.org>.


My feeling is that here you risk a lot of confusion between the functions
of the newswire and mailing lists, and that probably your idea is to have
an additional means of input/output of content for the newswire for people
who *do* have email access but *don't* have web access.

Another of the problems in IMC France (see previous email) was that
people got into the habit of discussing internal, organising questions
on the newswire, which meant that readers who just wanted to see
independent news instead got distracted by indymedia organising
questions (including personal accusations...), without really knowing
how indymedia works or how to get involved and with the result that
some debates were scattered throughout the newswire and became more
like some of the usenet groups which turn into theoretical arguments
about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin, while if these
discussions had been organised in list archives, there's more chance
that they would have self-generated into constructive solutions...

IMHO, what you could do is create a separate list, e.g. 

imc-mumbai-newswire

where the purpose is something like what you wrote above for 
"PUKAR @ INDYMEDIA"

> It purpose is to 
> disseminate news, opinions, articles, and information about events in 
> Mumbai, and serve as a networking tool for activists, journalists, 
> students, media makers.

with additional words something like

"for those people unable to access the web-based newswire"

so that this way people unable to access the newswire will be able to
use the mailing list. 

However, there is some risk that people would put everything on this list
instead of directly on the newswire - this is a risk for you to choose
if you're willing.

And if it is IMC Bombay/Mumbai people who pick and select which articles
from imc-mumbai-newswire to actually post on the newswire, than that could
create a de facto censorship *before* posting rather than *after* posting.
Which would be against the most basic element of inymedia: open posting,
with subsequent rather than prior editorial actions of hiding.


In any case, i think it is important to distinguish content distribution
(input + output) from organising questions specifically about 
independent media.

Otherwise the organising questions will risk being seen as unimportant
and risk being submerged in the flow of news. How can, e.g. "decision-making"
sound like a priority compared to reports on ethnic cleansing? But
nevertheless, some discussion on, e.g.  decision-making needs to be
made and not drowned by the terrible events which happen. 

It seems to me that the main list of an imc, e.g. imc-mumbai, should
be for general organising questions. Once you have agreed on some sort
of specific functions, e.g. having a mailing list as a non-web
input/output method for the newswire, or having a mailing list for
editorial questions, or for organising print editions, then IMHO it's
time to branch these off into specific mailing lists, and leave the
general mailing list for meta-questions.

It doesn't matter if only a few people subscribe to the specialised
lists - the archives will be there so that others can check later 
and everything will be open and public.

Another advantage of this is that people who are willing to trust
others on organising questions and prefer to focus on specialised
tasks can do this without swamping the task of those who *are* willing
to spend the time in organising. And then later on, if those people
doing the specialised work later have misunderstandings (who decided
X? or Y?), it will be easier to say, just look up the main archive and
you'll see how the decision was taken, and that it was taken openly
and consensually.


Just ask listwork@lists.indymedia.org for making new mailing lists.
Of course, this requires a (small)... decision... each time on one or
two people to be list administrators. 


You also need to think about the (admittedly fuzzy) line between 
journalism and activism. It might be better to have a different list

imc-mumbai-events

to announce general activism related events, and some IMCs also have
special places on the site itself for calendars of events. This
is technical stuff going way beyond what i know, but the point is that
technical solutions exist (or else need to be found) in order that
individual activists are not overworked...

solidarity
boud