[IMC-Tech] Re: [IMC-Process] Re: gainesville-imc / non open-publishing

[alien8@freeuk.com]

Good point - that's probably one of the crucial questions to be sorted out in the future: what makes a site an Indymedia site?! 

The problem is, Indymedia means different things for different people, as the "free speech vs political content" debate has shown, and as is reflected in the very different design of different Indymedia sites. For some Indymedia equals open posting, for others open posting is just one out of many Indymedia features. It can't be right to tell either of them "you're not Indymedia!"

An example: Over here in the UK we're checking the newswire several times a day to see if we have to take (slanderous, infactual etc) postings off. People planning Indymedia Germany are currently discussing a system by which they would approve incoming postings and make them appear on the site (also several times a day, I guess). All that means is that they would approve postings before they appear on the site, whereas we do it afterwards. Is there really such a big difference? Why should we be allowed to use the Indymedia name and they (for example) shouldn't?

I think the crucial point is allowing other people/activist groups/ members of the public to publish their reports and not the system by which it is done.

And some comments on Arthur's points:

I think the following points make a lot of sense:

An Indymedia site...
* displays news  
* allows users to post their own stories
* allows users to comment on stories 
* commitment to the principles that make up the seattle mission statement 
* the site should not be affiliated with a political party 
* the site must not endorse corporate products and services

The other points (and many more) should be more flexible and depend on the local situation and environment of the local Indymedia group:  

* a public meeting at least every quarter to involve new people
* support / endorsement for at least 5 other local 'action' groups (this may
need better definition)
* the site needs to have current content - ie. atleast 1 new posting a week
* the site should have prominently displayed the 'indy' logo (italic i thing)

Happy new year everyone!

Arne
(Indymedia UK)

You wrote:

> From: Sheri Herndon <sheri@indymedia.org>
> To: Matthew Arnison <matthewa@physics.usyd.edu.au>,
> CC: "imc-tech@" <imc-tech@indymedia.org>, <imc-communication@indymedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [IMC-Process] Re: gainesville-imc / non open-publishing
> 
> 
> 
> greetings everyone,
> 
> i completely agree with matthew's points.  as much as i like new indymedia
> sites myself, this is what we run into without some kind of charter and
> statement of principles.
> 
> perhaps it can be one of our more immediate discussion items for the next
> irc meeting.  which i hope will have nearly as representative grouping of
> people as possible to make some headway on some fairly important issues.
> 
> there will be a summary of the imc communication irc out shortly with some
> suggestions for next steps to get us to some more stable point of operating
> and managing and governing ourselves.  self-governance being something i
> think we're all into it.  so now we need to design and implement.
> 
> happy new year!  i'm looking forward to this year and the progress that 
> this
> network and movement makes.
> 
> love
> sheri
> 
> 
> > From: Matthew Arnison <matthewa@physics.usyd.edu.au>
> > Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 14:30:51 +1100 (EST)
> > To: arthur foelsche <arthur@indymedia.org>
> > Cc: "imc-tech@" <imc-tech@indymedia.org>, 
> imc-communication@indymedia.org,
> > imc-process@indymedia.org
> > Subject: [IMC-Process] Re: gainesville-imc / non open-publishing 
> indymedia
> > sites
> > 
> > always cool to see new indymedia sites.
> > 
> > however, like climate.indymedia.org, gainesville are not open publishing.
> > contributed articles must be approved by the administrators before they
> > appear on the front page.
> > 
> > personally i would suggest it doesn't matter what software they use, they
> > should not be calling themselves indymedia if they are not open
> > publishing.
> > 
> > however, we really need a charter before we can say such things with any
> > kind of consensus. :)
> > 
> > cheers,
> > matthew - sydney.indymedia.org volunteer
> > 
> > On Mon, 1 Jan 2001, arthur foelsche wrote:
> > 
> >> http://www.metanet.org/gainesville-indymedia/
> >> 
> >> looks like people have created another
> >> slashcode indy site.
> >> 
> >> does anybody know who's running this site?
> >> 
> >> do we want to give them gainesville.indymedia.org?
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> ------------------------------------------------------
> >> arthur@indymedia.org  email for pgp key   icq:85145792
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> imc-tech mailing list
> >> imc-tech@lists.indymedia.org
> >> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-tech
> >> 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > imc-process mailing list
> > imc-process@lists.indymedia.org
> > http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-process
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> imc-process mailing list
> imc-process@lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-process
> 
> 
>