[New-imc] Questions about Open Publishing

[changsing]

> Has such a post-publication method been considered? It's true that any
> sort of pre-publication hiding of articles would be unlikely to be
> accepted by the network. However, any post -publication method of hiding
> articles, as long as it's transparent and you have some locally agreed
> upon method of doing it, is likely to be accepted._ CONCLUSION:
> _imc-romania people should consider whether they would be happy to have an
> editorial policy post-publication hiding of articles._
> (http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Local/ImcRomaniaSummary030727Debate)

i'll just share a few thoughts here.
i think there is quite a difference between pre-publication and post-publication application of policies.
actually, i think that a newswire with pre-publication review of articles by an editorial team, is very simply not open publishing. it might resemble it, if everything is done in a clear and transparent way, but in my opinion it's a step back compared to what we've been working on for quite a long time now. i won't waste more space to explain why it's not open publishing, as it seems quite clear to me.
and, besides this, i think the choice of having such a policy (pre-publication review) tells a lot about the attitude that the collective has towards the newswire. it shows somewhat of a defensive stance, it focuses much more on the negative sides of open publishing, and sees the newswire as something that can potentially disrupt the work of the imc, and not something that can enormously contribute to it (actually being the core part of an indymedia center).
i've been having this feeling for quite a long time now: it seems to me like we're shifting more and more to being editorial-collective centered, and much less newswire centered. what we should try to provide is an open, free, horizontal, democratic, and bla bla bla communication tool, and not just another alternative web magazine.
and again, why should we base our discussion on open publishing on examples as indymedia germany, or switzerland, which are very clearly quite unique cases. then again, there are serious and profound reasons why those collectives decided to adopt a modified open publishing policy, and the decision came from the experience of the collective, and after long debates. they did try to have a completely open publishing newswire, but it didn't work, so they had to find other solutions.
now, i find it a bit disappointing to use those experiences as starting point for o.p. debate. why not using one of the other scores of examples where completely open publishing is working? why do we have to look at the worst part of it since the beginning, before even having tried to see how it works?
persoanlly, i don't really like the way our approach to open publishing is changing. it's a challenge, of course, and noone ever said it would have been easy. we don't need any more independent and alternative information sources. we need to engage this challenge and we need to find out how to win.
solid
changsing