[Imc-uk-process] the full lowdown on open publishing!

[AnarchoBabe]

Hia,

just to say we sb and me probably can't make the next irc-meeting physically, as we are out for our weekly  filmshows at
the Forest.
Next film: Nonviolence for a Change...

Feel free to go ahead with the irc meeting on Thursday nevertheless.
Our computer might be online, though.

About the open publishing. Well, maybe there is a big general difference in that I don't like open publishing  in general. But I do like collaborative reporting networks 
easy to access.

There are some big long articles attached, if you want to give yourself the full ideological dosis why.  

So,  whatever model of open publishing you'll choose, I'll hate it anyway, so go ahead with any model you feel drawn to, as I will probably work with it as something  
which can't be avoided but has to be suffered from when being involved in indymedia, which in my opinion is a brilliant resource  for grassroot groups and activists 
once the sociopathic(!) bullshit is removed.

However, I'd prefer the model implemented on the german imc, if I'd be given a vote, as the front page is  always groomed
no matter when the last time was an imc-volunteer administered the page.  It encourages the vounteer to take  positive
affirmations rather than negative decisions, and the time you spend on making decisions conerning an  individual article
should therefore be less. The contributions stay longer on the front page and authors are therefore  encouraged to
submit higher quality articles and to spend more time on writing and researching for these. The quality of  the webpage
goes therefore up, as does the quality of features fed from articles of the newswire. Submissions of spam,  tofu and
neonazi articles will go down, as they never reach the front page, however, contributions of sociopaths in  the
comments will go up. This might not be a bad thing, it might mean discussions and participation might  increase.
However, the front page is and will always be representable, whether the imc- volunteers throw away their  passwords or
not. The chance, that the webpage can still be used as a respectable archive even if nobody ever does any  admin
work anymore, is much higher than at any other model. Furthermore, it does not seem to demand a life-long committment to  clean out
the newswire from the imc-volunteers.
Also, in case something else new and flashy comes along, some new technical possibilities, drawing away  attention
from Indymedia (such as Indymedia did e.g. to static pages such as nadir.org or even linkeseite.de...) the  page can
easily have a peacefull rest, without keeping to much regular attention and workload on some individuals to  keep it up.
See what happened with IMC France.

[sb says:
Hopefully research in Harry's Artificial Intelligence dept comes up with goods to relieve us of tedious workload being part of equation. And just work of making higher 
level decisions remains.]

As we have the option with an additional webpage on another server, we might be taking the political and  ideological
aspects of the open publishing and its model more serious compared with other groups or imc-volunteers, as  our efforts
are not solely driven by implementing mir asap.
However, recognizing the need of getting mir going as soon as possible, discussing the model of open  publishing to be
decided on by consensus, might delay the project, which is probably not worthwhile the time of trying to reach consensus.
Agree with you that priority should be to get the page up, working more  reliable than the active one and then to go live.

But it seems difficult to change the model after the page is going live, not because of technical, but because of political and  conventional
reasons.
Also, it seems difficult, unpracticable and buggy to make different subsections working with different open  publishing
models.  If there would be some spare time, it might be nice to spend time on, but for now, there are more urgent things
to get done with mir. 
cheers Ulla

[sb says:
Also what about  emerging groups who require a subpage to help develop the group but will need help from the rest of IMCUK with admin to start with so will have a 
model chosen for them by those helping, and then a group will grow with this model and it will probably remain set.]

draft mail to imc-feature list: (8.5.2003)
Hia,
sorry to say so, but I am a bit exhausted with hiding and also particularly with explaining why it was/is   hidden.
I really did not join indymedia to write in average 2 hours long explaining emails every time I hide an   article about the
interpretation and intention of these postings and their connection to the 7-10 daily Neonazi-postings and  comments or
why certain mails are posted by sociopaths trying to disrupt the activist grassroot community for which the  service is run.

Actually I volunteered to put in lots of work for indymedia because I particularly enjoy diy journalism, such  as writing
features, posting reports about events, even doing time-intensive translations sometimes, and also to do  pictures,
developing and printing these and, if I get a chance, also particularly doing audio reports and   (contributing to) videos.

I really do not enjoying hiding articles and reports and the constant question for afterwards writing   accountablity reports.
I want to keep these disgusting articles off the webpage I put so much work in, and I want activists and   grassroot
groups to use it without needing to have second thoughts about their credibility.
Have anybody ever drawn the users into their accountability when posting bang-out-of order stuff?
...



article on free speech and open publishing, written in february 2003, to be published on indy scotland  discussion list
sometimes:

So here is my position. I am against open publishing. It takes too much of my precious time cleaning out  the  bullshit of
sociopaths which I rather spend on other projects, may it be political prisoner support, writing high quality
articles/features and researching  background information, linking up with other projects and activists
or learning new tasks and skills for further input.  It is not " somebody just removes it", it actually   takes time, goes on
your nerves and keeps you from doing other things, and actually, really it is not "somebody" as in "the milk  comes in
plastic bottles" there is a  history of production/work/workload behind it, so it is actually you and me, so  as if people are
soo much into free-speech, now it would actually be the time to stand up and  show that your opinion is not  empty big
mouth talk, but has practical consequenses in your personal committment to proof it - by providing your time,  energy and 
passion to this position.

As well as the committment into "open publishing" is not limited in these draft documents - it seems to  be a  live long
committment once you sign up to it, and I am personally not prepared to carry this responsibility.

The other main point which I want to rise against "open publishing" as such, is, that, it was once  thought  to be a
method to encourage people to participate in activism, in the project and in discussions- whether they are  shy or did not
study, do publish in a  foreign language and are therefore not so eloquant with words, or whether they hold a  position
which they do not want to be associated with by their personal name- as if  these positions are too radical,  or too
controversial or too personal. I still think there was a great idea behind the practical turn-out, and that  this position as 
such is great, BUT practically, "open publishing" does not encourage minority groups to participate more in  indymedia,
in fact, it has the controversial effect of  these groups participating LESS!
This is not only the case because of the neonazi articles and comments staying up far too long because  of  lack of
volunteers regularly checking the postings, or the lack of access to the admin side (technical bottleneck) or  to the
internet. It might piss off people if  they look at the side, and especially if it is still there after six  hours or a night or so, but
it won't keep them away as the main focus and ideology behind the website is far more obvious by the middle  column
features, but they will get cautious. People might give it another try, or two, before finally being pissed  off. The chances,
that  they are not hit by a weird conspiracy theory or more nazi-stuff or activist spam when they try again  are actually not
too bad. But the main issue is, that the "open publishing" too often allows activists mobbing and flame wars  or  heavy
critisisms under each other, these are often not to be removed under the guidelines.
And this actually and practically works in favour for the privileged, the studied, and the most aggressive,  so favours
again the "male 20-30 years old white activist".
This I have seen first on IMC-Germany, where there is a big load below the posted articles, and the   discussions CAN
be really worthwhile and to high standards, BUT more often the critisism are so heavy, that campaigns and  activists
often refrain from posting more stuff in future and, in fact, leave the webpage/project and do notlook  anymore at the
webpage untill the next global days of action a year later or so. "Open publishing" has not become a tool of
enouragement, it has neither become a tool of raising self-confidence and capability, as when activists first  try to
publish, they are slagged to the ground or ignored, therefore not encouraging them to proceed in this  project- or to
further participate.
And- in fact- "open publishing" does encourage to write angry emails, like me writing a "what a bunch of   sexist
assholes" commentary - which got a friend of mine pulling me off the computer and deleting it before it was  sent- a good
decision, to be said afterwards.Following nonsense discussions and arguments about "how sexist is this lot  really?" and
"are they assholes or do they just behave as such?". So, leaving this anatomical topic behind, but actually,  I am
normally not the type of person writing  such emails, so it actually would be nice if indymedia would not
encourage me to behave like this. It would be nice if such an organisation would try to encourage people  to  behave
and relate to each other at the best communication possible- and not the worst.
And, also, not to mention that the whole commentary story did not help anyone or anything, it just  brought  about a lot of
grief.

Another point to be made in connection of "open publishing" is accountability. As before, the ideas  behind "open
publishing" were honourable, but the practice is not.
Accountabilty means, to know what is done with your contribution, how it is handled, and if there are  any  decisions
made, concerning your contribution, the person making the changes being accountable to  you.
But accountability would also have to work on an equal bases; meaning the author is also accountable to  the  project,
to indymedia. And this is a weak point. The authors of contributions- how do they value the project, how  accountable
are they for their contributions, how accountable are they for "harming" the  project (trolls, gnomes and  other
sociopaths)?
(point to be further developed).

The last and final point is the definition of "open publishing". Seems strange to put this at the end,  but  it is the most
important.  The defintion of "open publishing" has been confused with terms like "free speech" and "freedom  of
opinion." "Freedom of opinion" is an universal human right, and layed down in the human  rights
regulations (to be sourced), whereas "free speech" is a term which is particularly popular in  the US.
The difference between these two terms should be clear, "freedom of opinion" actually requires some   consideration
and reflection about what you have to say. "Free speech" does not. "Free speech" does  also not only refer to
unlimited, unrestricted way of talking, but also, that the value of the persons languages decreases; talk is  getting
cheap, neither consideration nor reflection is encouraged. "Free speech" does not require any reflection or
accountability, it does not care if persons are getting hurt by what you have  to say, "Open publishing" is  founded on
"free speech" and this basically carries forward its flaws.  Also it is particularly founded on North- American perception of
"free speech" rather than "freedom of opinion".  Which basically makes it possible still to be oppressed in  the
US because of your opinion despite of  the right of free speech.
(more later)

my response to Chuck0s "The Sad Decline of Indymedia":
IMC- The definite report part1:
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=03/02/02/0845165

Chuck0's "The Sad Decline of Indymedia":
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=02/12/08/2553147

"Faschismus ist keine Meinung sondern ein Verbrechen" VVN-BdA 
"Fascism is not an opinion, it is a crime"