[Seattle-editorial] editorial policy thoughts continued..

[Jason Reep]

I think that people aren't getting exactly what I'm meaning.  The 
existing policy doesn't get in anyone's way when wanting hide posts.

We've operated for three years now, through times of newswire abuse 
several times as bad as what's happening now (once having to hide well 
over 100 posts in a day), using three different hiding categories:  hide 
immediately/no notification, hide immediately and notify, and 
propose/discuss/hide.

what I hear is that people want to add hate speech to the 'hide 
immediately/no notification' category, though I'd far prefer it to be in 
the category of 'immediate hide then notify.' if you want to notify once 
per day after hiding posts all day that's fine.  how hard is it to keep 
a list of article ID #'s and write one email per day?

most hate speech will be immediately recognizable to us all and I could 
live with this being placed in an immediate hide category.  However, 
there is a point where obvious hate speech meets ambiguous expression of 
issue opinion.  This is the point where it is more important to notify 
the list.  It's still ok to hide first but more important to notify when 
the 'abuse' is subject to interpretation. This category also allows for 
hide proposals for posts that raise red flags (eg: articles that are 
journalistic in for but really hate speech) but are unclear enough that 
the decision to hide should be a group consensus (three hour silent 
consensus).  This is a support system.  We've tried to err on the side 
of leaving posts alone. But, when a post makes an editor uncomfortable 
but still questioning whether it should be hidden then they can bring it 
forward to the rest of the group.  Then, if a hide is made, it is in the 
name of the editorial collective and not the sole resposibility of an 
individual editor.

The last category is the 'special hide' category where patterns of abuse 
or individual abusers have been identified.  In these cases a proposal 
is made, consensus is acheived and from that point forward a new 
category of 'immediately hide/no notification' posts exists.  Cases 
could include things like long right-wing political diatribes that 
amount to trolling or 'Killing Jews is Good'

It just doesn't seem that hard or restrictive to me.  it's just up to 
the editors to actually follow through.  There is trust, accountability, 
streght and flexability built into this editorial policy.

i realize that the urgency here is real, but thoughtful response is 
necessary.

by the way:
http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/AboutUs

Global IMC priciple of Unity #4:
All IMC's, based upon the trust of their contributors and readers, shall 
utilize open web based publishing, allowing individuals, groups and 
organizations to express their views, anonymously if desired. **see 
appendix: Open Publishing document (still in proposal phase, at this 
address: 
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-communication/2001-April/00170 
7.html)

in solidarity,
Jason



typist at speakeasy.net wrote:

> 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
>>
> 
> 
>