[New-imc] Arguments for a subject-based IMC

[boud]

hi chuck,

On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, Chuck0 wrote:

> Recently, I made a proposal to set up a subject-based IMC called 
> "housing.indymedia.org." There is a long-standing bias in the Indymedia 
> network against subject-based IMCs, which has always appeared to this 
> activist to be a fairly vacuous policy. One subject-based IMC 
> (climate.indymedia.org) has been created, although that project was 
> controversial. Other subject-based IMCs have been proposed, but none have 
> seen approval or implementation.

Because AFAIK noone has done the work to try implementation. In this
case, you seem to be ignoring the suggestions on how to try
implementation:

http://newimc.indymedia.org

and you have trivialised a suggestion on who to network with on this
theme, i.e. a major homeless support group for the homeless people that
threw out the World Bank from a project:

http://www.narmada.org


 
> 4) face-to-face meetings of a global (planetary) IMC would cause the most 
> oppressed people to be even more excluded than in electronic meetings
> 
> Face-to-face meetings are good. We need more of them. A subject-based, 
> international IMC would actually facilitate more face-to-face meetings, 
> because the information on that website would allow isolated activists and 
> localized groups to know more about similar groups and people in other 
> cities, regions, and countries. A subject-based IMC would actually do more to 
> facilitate face-to-face meetings than the status quo, or a simple subject 
> searh link on the global IMC.

You fail to provide a counterargument. 


> 6) it would increase the focus on centralisation
> 
> No, it's more like creating a big node in a network. It would be pulling 
> together content from local websites, but it would also prompt more reporting 
> on the issue. The subject-based IMC is creating a central, so to speak, IMC 
> on the subject of housing, but it would serve to augment what already exists 
> out there.

This is a valid comment. i've added it to "Arguments for" on the TWiki.

 
> It's interesting that most of these objections revolve around the issue of 
> face-to-face meetings, a noble idea, yet something that is about process more 
> than it is about content.

F2F is both process *and* content, but is especially about
content. It's when "the oppressed" provide content that the world
starts to change.  But if we're not careful about process, we'll just
create a "dictatorship of the proletariat", which is *not* what
Indymedia is about. Even if some of the very active Indy people are in
groups that feel that dictatorship of the proletariat would be a good
thing, they accept that this should not be done within Indymedia (AFAIK).


>  >>Practical alternatives
> 
> 1 .Create a global mailing list to coordinate a category/feature/filter on 
> the http://www.indymedia.org site which can feed in local categories on the 
> theme - see http://www.indymedia.org/syndication.php3
>            o the global lists generally have functioning problems - people 
> who feel that making a global category/feature/filter should be aware that it 
> is not easy to get a global list to work well.
> 
> A global email list does not have to ability to include multimedia, or 
> stories combine with pictures. It could be argued that local DIY journalism 
> could be conducted via email lists, yet we still have local websites. Another 
You missed the keyword "coordinate". 

> problem with an email list is that it isn't conducive to a person who just 
> wants to skim the news on a website without having to be subscried to an 
> email list.

Despite your long experience on Indymedia mailing lists, you seem to
have forgotten the fact that most lists have public archives:

http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/

 
> And an email list is a poor substitute for a fully-functioning IMC website. ;-)

Very few IMCs exist without an email list for coordination. Any sort
of coordination which is non-local has even more need for a well-functioning
mailing list than an IMC, which can in principle work without.

 
> 2. Create a category/feature/filter on your already existing and diverse 
> local IMC, and offer a mailing list to try and feed in make this become a 
> global subsite in practice. This way all the practical problems could be 
> dealt with by a local collective and the transition of the subsite from local 
> to global would be bottom-up instead of top-down. (Nothing is stopping any 
> local site from using the RSS feeds from other local sites to create their 
> own local mirror of central column features!)
> 
> Leaving aside the poor bibliographic access that IMC websites provide, this 
> is an inadequate idea that is thrown out to placate people who ask for 
> subject-based IMCs. This is the "throw more tech at it" attitude that 
> dominates the IMC network and leads to an unfair power situation where the 
> techies get to make policy decisions based on what floats their gourd at the 
> given moment.

i fail to understand how you can possibly hope to create some sort
of subject-based coordination of IMC stories if:

- you do not wish to create a publicly archived mailing list to coordinate 

- you do not wish to use RSS feeds/syndication, the most obvious
technical element required for your project

> 7) The IMC network should be facilitating projects that media activists want 
> to do, instead of getting in their way. If there aren't serious technical, 
> resource and political reasons why a new IMC project shouldn't be created and 
> there is a need for the project being proposed, then the IMC network should 
> get behind a good, solid project that isn't necessarily local.

So start a mailing list, learn about the technical resources that exist,
and make the project good and solid and real. We'd be delighted if you
did this, but have warned you about the difficulties.


i'm confused about whether you want to coordinate information from local
IMCs or not. 

here you say you do *not* want to coordinate from local IMCs:

> subject-based IMCs. This is the "throw more tech at it" attitude that 
> dominates the IMC network and leads to an unfair power situation where the 
> techies get to make policy decisions based on what floats their gourd at the 
> given moment.

here you say you *do* want to coordinate from local IMCs:

> 8) A subject-based or issue-based IMC would highlight the content being 
> created by local IMCs. The front page could be set up like the current 
> IMC-Global, in that a column could be created that pulls links and info from 
> relevant stories on local IMCs. Local IMCs such as IMC-DC, IMC-Bay Area, 
> IMC-NYC, and others have alot of quality DIY reporting being done on housing 
> issues and activism.


i suggest that you create the mailing list, and discuss it there among
people who are interested.  i'm sure noone at www-features would
object if you proposed a central column feature including URLs to
existing material plus an announcement about creating a mailing list
on the theme. You could then see how many people are interested and
discuss it on the list.

boud