[Seattle-editorial] Editorial needs of new site design

[anarch3m]

Three yeas ago i mentioned a very ambitious project to get collectives working across the srtate, posting to the site from various locale.

I used the term sattellite but the whole thing was/is beyond some to appreciate.

You have reinvented a more concretized proposal on the general idea.

Regards hide policy being good enough.  For its limited purposes it still failed to do jack  And the only way to redeem the situation without censoring or blocking posts is to walk around the dirty water and look at a nice clean pond.  Some see no reason for a clean pond.  Fine, let them ignore it.l  Those who want it can own it and tend it and fill it.  /lead follow or stand back.  As afinity groups, we have no say in other autonomous groups  fine, let us have a page for local and let us use it.  don't involve in it.

Is their a block to this?  a principled block to our project?

I will bring the request to every meeting henceforth if there is an agenda to stop others from having projects at imc.  I will stay on it forever.--

--------- Original Message ---------

DATE: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:34:40
From: BFGalbraith <bfgalbraith at yahoo.com>

>This brings up some interesting possibilities, in that
>independent editorial groups could have independent
>sections for the newswire.  The last I heard from the
>Bellingham IMC people, they asked "so how long will it
>be before we can start posting to the web?"  I don't
>think they wanted to go throught the trouble of
>setting up their own site, and would have probably
>been happy with their own catagory on the news wire. 
>
>My main concern is that when local people (from
>vancuver BC to portland) put stuff up on the news
>wire, they see that it gets into a position of
>elevated importance over the constant spam storm, and
>that it is protected from the spam storm jolting their
>news off the page in a few hours.  This spam-storm of
>course is a major outreach barrier, because new local
>contributing groups see that their stuff is just sort
>of mixed in with the nonlocal crap, and not given
>enough time for most local readers to get a chance to
>read it.  So for me, having seperate local and other
>sections of the newswire is the bare minimum we need
>to function effectively as an IMC.  I do agree that
>other catogorization is potentially very useful!
>
>(Jason goes on to explain that he feels that our
>current newswire hiding policies are sufficient, as
>far a our moderation needs go).
>
>I believe our problem with our hiding policy isn't
>really a problem with the hiding policy, so much as
>it's just too much work to hide all the garbage. 

  This is why I
>think the seperate newswire section for Local and
>other is absolutely critical, because otherwise our
>site is just another Indymedia spam receprical.
> (Have I jumped to a conclusing here?  Would we still
>have to go through and sort the local from the other
>ourselves?)
>
>(I have noticed that on some Indymedia sites, labels
>are given to each article, according to what type of
>content the article contains.  This would be cool, as
>long as our local stuff has it's own seperate
>"physical" section from the other stuff, regaurdless
>of attached labels.)
>
>Again, we who want to do outreach MUST have at least a
>seperation of Local from Other, but actual section of
>the newswire (not just by label,) in order to be able
>to proceed in out reach with any level of confidence.
>I wish I new what other conversation was going on on
>the Editorial list about this, but alas, I can't get
>on.  Please include my e-mail address in your
>conversation about this issue, because I am not
>getting editorial e-mail.
====
>-Benjamin 
>


____________________________________________________________
Free Poetry Contest. Win $10,000. Submit your poem @ Poetry.com!
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;6750922;3807821;l?http://www.poetry.com/contest/contest.asp?Suite=A59101