[Seattle-editorial] editorial policy thoughts continued..

[sheelanagig at juno.com]

I agree it should be as easy to take those insane posts down by the
editorial staff as it was for them to post them. This ridiculous monolith
issue of removing posting needs to be weighed against futility. Risk
versus benefit, a simple legal analysis used universally...

I agree that one of the first things needed is a way to quickly remove
posts that should not be on the wire. Without fear of personal attack,
thus the numbers or pseudonyms.

This seems to be an urgent issue, not one that can be belabored
endlessly. I think there needs to be a way for editors to take the trash
hate stuff down immediately upon seeing it, or at least shortly
thereafter with a post to the editorial group, because we do not have the
staff to have long meetings about each post. If we spend all our time
discussing these things, we take time away from discussions of how to
better the site beyond just getting rid of hate posts...At some point, we
have to trust the collective editors' judgement, I would think...

kirsten


On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 20:05:02 +0000 typist at speakeasy.net writes:
> 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
> > 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Seattle-editorial mailing list
> Seattle-editorial at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/seattle-editorial
> 

*************************************************************************
*********************
For near-daily political ramblings from Kirsten, visit her blog at 
www.kanderberg.blogspot.com 
or go to her writing website at www.kirstenanderberg.com


________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!