[Seattle-editorial] Newswire Editing

[Jason Reep]

the point is that the policy already allows for decisions like the ones 
you are advocating, including the ongoing hiding of individual posters, 
but maintains accountability.  it's been done in the past.  the 
important part, aside from actually accomplishing the task of cleaning 
up the newswire, is that it is an open process.  every time we've 
decided  to ban an individual (or hide their posts indefinately) we've 
posted an article to the newswire explaining the problem and the action. 
  then we're off the hook for any censorship accusations that might 
come.  it's public, we remain accountable to the readership, and who 
knows, we might even be praised for the move.  maybe it's not always 
necessary to make a grand announcement to the general readership, but 
banning a poster is a serious matter, no matter how hateful they may be 
or how much we hate them (hmmm, awful lot of hating going on).  if a 
decsion to hide an individual poster on an ongoing basis is taken, there 
must be a publically available record (this list) and it's a special 
decision, not automatic.

Gentry Lange wrote:

> For instance, what are Zero content posts? Are these blank posts or are they
> completely empty? What about people who spam the entire IMC network... this
> is "Zero" content to me, and the few other people that come to meetings
> lately seem to hate this crap too. But I don't know if it qualifies as a
> Zero content post, or anything else.
zero content posts have meant, in the past, posts that mistakenly were 
made without any text.  they have also meant posts that contain no 
information.  this discussion is important and usefulso that the group 
can decide what 'zero content' means for the Seattle IMC, right now. 
it's open to interpretation by the group.  and, yes, i'm still part of 
the group even if I haven't been to a meeting in a long time.  i regret 
that it has been nearly impossible for me to attend a meeting lately and 
acknowledge that for the newer participants this makes it harder to 
establish trust.  however, the editorial group has always conducted 
discussion online and really can't function otherwise.  that said, the 
more active these discussions get the more important it will become for 
me to attend a meeting or two.

> 
> Second question.. providing "safe space" for unmoderated open-publiching,
> well what's constitutes a violation of this policy? If threatening language,
> Fuck you, I hope you die, this kind of thing, happens all the time, but no
> one stops it?
sounds threatening to me.  i agree. hide it.  was that so hard?  no 
policy change needed.

> 
> I respect your background with the IMC, but as the newswire is in a current
> state of Palestine/Israel arguments, with a lot of crap comments that aren't
> useful to anyone, and very little news of Seattle, with only two (Jason, and
> Jeremy) longer term editors, only occasionally chiming in to say what used
> to go on... and only occasionally if at all attending meetings. Then I have
> to say this old policy is not working.
i understand that the newswire needs cleaning.  in the course of my 
comments over the last week or two, I have never said that posts should 
not be hidden.  what concerns me is the that it seems like people are 
trying to make it easier to hide things without the requirment of saying 
so.  i'm sorry, that's the price of editorial control.  it's work.  it's 
great that more folks are getting involved but that doesn't mean that 
the old rules no longer apply.

> I don't know how much you read the newswire lately Jason, but it's being hit
> constantly by the likes of the following:
> 
> "Killing Jews is Good"
> "Puget Sound Patriot"
> "Analog Kid"
sounds like you've identified three candidates for ongoing hiding. 
fine.  would you rather have begun hiding them automatically, 
unilaterally?  or is it better to let the group know and come to a 
decision together then take action?

> And others. And if these are the kind of people that hit the newswire the
> most, and we are going to allow it... Then frankly, I'm not going to be a
> part of that we.
> 
> I'm for making the newswire useful to the progressive community, not
> creating a open-publishing forum for people to piss on. The old rules
> frankly allow people to piss all over the newsire, and as the most active
> member of the editorial currently, I'm sick of people pissing on the
> newswire. So is everyone who comes to meetings.
> 
> Arguing that the old way works is something I will argue against. Because
> well the old way seems not to be happening if it used to work.
> 
> So what's the priority, open-publishing for everyone to piss on, or forum
> for NEWS about Seattle?
this is not the first time that the newswire has become this bad and 
this is not the first time that serious action has been discussed and 
implemented.  One of the biggest problems that the IMC has had is with 
institutional memory.  if people don't care what's taken place in the 
past and are willing to write it off as old and disfunctional without 
discussion, then frankly, I'm not going to be a part of that.

If, after understanding the current policy, people want to make 
thoughtful changes, i'd be ok with that. what i've seen so far seems a 
lot more like people are just pissed and want a quick fix.

-jason


> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: seattle-editorial-bounces at lists.indymedia.org
> [mailto:seattle-editorial-bounces at lists.indymedia.org]On Behalf Of Jason
> Reep
> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 8:44 AM
> To: Editorial
> Subject: Re: [Seattle-editorial] Newswire Editing
> 
> 
> I will be necessarily critical of radical policy changes.  I would again
> like to re-iterate that the policy as it stands allows for the
> aggressive hiding that seems to be in vogue right now.  I feel a
> slippery slope coming on but I'm not going to object to the sincere
> efforts to clean up the tone of the newswire.  As far as changing the
> policy, I'd ask for people to be very careful.  This is something that's
> at the core of what makes the IMC the IMC, all the bullshit politics
> about the space aside.
> 
> Am I protective of the policy as is? Yes.  I was there when it written.
>   I helped.  So take that as a bias if you want.  But, if you read it
> and think about it, I think that you'll understand that it's very
> flexible and strong.
> 
> What has the policy stopped the editors from doing that makes it so
> important to change it?
> 
> -Jason
> 
> Gentry Lange wrote:
> 
>>Hey everyone... I don't have the time or patience to fight the newswire
> 
> crap
> 
>>all by myself. So until I have 2 other people commit to vigilante action
> 
> on
> 
>>a daily basis, I am going to postpone doing anything to the wire.
>>
>>My thought is that we need first, more volunteer editors, and 2nd a new
>>policy. Until then I repeat, I will not be the only one doing this.
>>
>>
>>Gentry
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Seattle-editorial mailing list
>>Seattle-editorial at lists.indymedia.org
>>http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/seattle-editorial
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Seattle-editorial mailing list
> Seattle-editorial at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/seattle-editorial
>