[Seattle-editorial] This article should have been be hidden.

[jonathan lawson]

By the way, posting the discussion on the newswire gives little indication 
of how the process actually works. Here's what you posted:
1. your proposal to hide something on grounds of "pornography."
2. Jason agrees, saying that the post looks like an ad. (member of 
editorial collective).
3. Jeremy lodges a disagreement based on our editorial policy (member of 
editorial collective)
4. Troy Prouty (not a member of editorial collective) writes, "hide"

Of these, the only post that indicates any awareness of our editorial 
policy is Jeremy's --yet you comment that you "hope that the editorial 
collective be more condiderate when appplying our published policies on the 
hiding of posts." Publishing these comments you disagree with is really 
disrespectful. I will be extremely pissed if you ever "out" my list emails 
to the newswire without my permission.

That said, here are my thoughts about the article. (1) Jeremy is right, 
"pornography" and "inappropriateness" are not part of our policy. This is 
on purpose, and it's because everyone has their own private ideas of what 
those things mean, and we have to make decisions based on public 
values--that means the editorial policy. (2) Jason suggests that the 
article is an advertisement--which is a valid reason to hide something. I 
agree. In any case, if Jeremy agrees with that, we can hide the damn thing.

Jonathan

At 03:16 AM 4/12/2003 -0700, Joseph wrote:
>I've posted the discussion from our public archive, that were used to
>determine that this not be hidden, to the article in the form of a comment.
>
>  http://seattle.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=25729&group=webcast
>
>Joseph
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Seattle-editorial mailing list
>Seattle-editorial at lists.indymedia.org
>http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/seattle-editorial