[Seattle-editorial] editorial policy thoughts continued..

[typist at speakeasy.net]

It should be easy to hid posts as it is VERY easy to post crap.  Why should it take us longer to remove stuff than it takes for the poster to post?

We are going around in circles on this making group editorial decisions spinning our wheels just as these jokers would love to see us do.

The open publishing wire has lost it's usefulness.  We are not getting the kind of publishing it was originally meant for or very little of it and we are being overrun.  We know that we have to find a way to get around that in our confined code system.  

We're talking about hiding posts and putting  a comment on hidden post "by editor #3" so we know who hid it and they won't be subject to harrassement.  The public knows it was hidden by an editor.  I think that is enough accountability.  We do not have to email list.  If people want to look at hidden posts and why they can review them.

Judy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jason Reep [mailto:jasonr at speakeasy.net]
> Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2003 07:07 PM
> To: 'editorial'
> Subject: [Seattle-editorial] editorial policy thoughts continued..
> 
> more thoughts on the editorial policy questions at hand:
> 
> seems like two main types of posts are the problems right now:
> 
> 1-hate speech.  this one was almost put into the automatic hide category 
> at the beginning, but defining it became to difficult and it was sort of 
> folded into the safe space principle as a hide that required 
> notification.  we know it when we see it but it's hard to say what it 
> consists of beforehand.  seems like it's dominating the wire right now 
> and aggressive action is needed.  that's fine.  i seem to remember that 
> we've had sort a three tier system: posts we hide automatically without 
> the need to report; posts we hide automatically but report after the 
> fact; and posts that requrire consensus before hiding.  I think that the 
> editors are already empowered to hide hate speech under the principle of 
> maintining a safe space and notify the group after the fact.  if the 
> volume is too great to post to the list every time a hide is made, then 
> keep a list and post once a day to the list.  it's about accountability. 
>   I'm on the fence about the use of pseudonyms.  the need to not subject 
> ourselves to personal harrassment is great but so is the need to remain 
> accountable to each other and the readers.
> 
> 2-posts that make the newswire less useful as a news resource:
> this is more ambiguous.  it includes things that pose as real articles 
> but are really right-wing screed. often a pattern can be identified or 
> it's an individual poster.  they can be handled on a case by case basis 
> by posting a hide proposal to the list and get silent or active 
> consensus.  I think that we have used a short time frame for silent 
> consensus on hide proposals in the past, maybe three hours. Or, a 
> special hide proposal to actively hide an individual poster under 
> whatever name they use.  Often it can be determined that the same poster 
> is responsible for posts under many names.  after such a proposal is 
> made and approved then no more discussion is necessary to hide that 
> indivduals posts from that point forward.  I can't see many ways to 
> remove any steps from this.  We shouldn't make it too easy to remove 
> 'posts we don't like' by automatically hiding them because they are 
> making the newswire less useful.
> 
> so. i want everyone to know that i intend all of my comments to be 
> constructive and help move the process forward.  i agree that the 
> newswire needs cleaning and that the entire mission of the website is 
> subverted if it is allowed to wallow.  i'm not against hiding posts. 
> i'm against the zeal to do make it really easy to hide posts.  it 
> shouldn't be easy.
> 
> i'm open to the possibility of further defining for speedy hiding 
> (1)hate speech and (2)ambiguous posts intended to disrupt the usefulnees 
> of the newswire as a useful media resource.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Seattle-editorial mailing list
> Seattle-editorial at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/seattle-editorial
>