[Seattle-editorial] editorial policy thoughts continued..

[Gentry Lange]

You know, I never wanted it to be a flame war. So if it sounds like one,
that's frustrating. I'm pretty annoyed with the entire IMC of late, not just
editorial, so perhaps my frustration and enthusiam mix badly online.

I appreciate that you've been involved for a long time, and for everyone who
hasn't met Jason I like him, have met him several times at the IMC, and this
is no personal attack on Jason.

So this brings up maybe why this seems like a flame war.

The IMC brings in new volunteers, gets them involved, seems to be consensus
based... but then, whoa if volunteers want to change something... that's
huge, and people who haven't been to a meeting, haven't said nothing to no
one in sometime months if not years, they come in and start siting "policy"
as reasons not to act.

This happens in all sorts of ways at the IMC. And it burns people out. It
doesn't just happen in Editorial, Jason is actually at least in the top 5
active Editors currently, so he's been pretty involved. But that's really
kinda sad. Because if there hasn't been involvement of more than 4 people
ever, that's a HUGE problem. And the IMC is more of a club than a working
model for community involvement.

So, back to the subject at hand, I do not disagree with the editorial policy
in total, I simply disagree that it is a finished product... I would treat
my proposal for hides as "addendums to" and not "replacement of" proposals.

Gentry




-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Reep [mailto:jasonr at speakeasy.net]
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 1:37 PM
To: g at art13.com
Cc: editorial seaimc
Subject: Re: [Seattle-editorial] editorial policy thoughts continued..


This is long, sorry.

I am not interested in a flame war with you and the rest of this group.
  There are several new people with none of the context that I've been
providing, no experience in IMC history or editorial working group
process, and even you Gentry, have said that you don't know or haven't
been told why or how this stuff was supposed to work.  any changes to
the editorial policy have to meet a high standard and not be ad hoc or
piecemeal.

you make some reasonable arguments but you act like I've been standing
in the way for no good reason.  Gentry, there have never been more than
4 people actively working on the newswire at any given time.  For the
last year, no, but I dedicated years to IMC work and so my input is
pretty valid I think.

I also have not blocked any of your proposals.  Last time I checked we
still did things by consensus here.  decisions are not made by the
loudest yellers.  changing the editorial policy requires discussion.  I
know that people have been talking about this at meetings, and maybe my
objections were unexpected, but that's tough.

The mail this is in response to is the first one that actually tries to
define the changes you want to make.  that's my whole goal.  people have
been saying that the policy has been 'fucked' 'flawed' 'out of date' but
until now there has been no effort to ask clarifying questions or
propose specific changes.  People without any understanding of the
current policy, except that it seems to annoy them, are yelling about
how it has to be changed.  don't blame me for trying to point out how it
has worked as is, dealing with each and every hide or ban that's come
up. i'm sorry, i just don't buy that it's too hard to hide articles
under the current system. If you bookmark the article admin page with
comments showing you can go right there and hide or edit posts/comments.
  The only way it's going to get any easier technically is with a new
codebase. as you rightly point out, the problem is with participation.

response to your proposals:
> No-content, should be changed to "non-news", no discernable ideas is not a
> well defined statement. Words alone represent "ideas" and therefor this
> stupulation is not at all clear. I've said this several times, and no one
> responds. Additionally, it brings the policy in line with principle #4,
> maintaining a useful media resource.
1- no content --> non-news.  I'm generally supportive of this idea,
though I think there's often good writing that gets posted that may not
be exactly news.  I like the idea of there being more Seattle specific
content.  But I think that the only way to do this is by getting more
locals to post good stuff.  I think it's backwards to hide good news
posts because they're not Seattle specific.
>
> 2. Editors don't respond in a timely manner. Or no-one responds at all.
> Maybe "back in the day of the IMC", when the policy worked, there were
> enough people to take on the SPAM attacks, and hate mongers.. but today
> there are very few people actively engaged in monitoring the newswire. To
> that end, even though a clear violation exists, they are hard to deal with
> because the person simply posts more and more frequently, because they
only
> have to overwhelm one, or maybe two, people.
2-There is a current upsurge in editorial energy so hopefully, for the
time being and with some changes that address the problems there will be
  enough to handle the needs.  participation will never not be an issue.

> the currently policy states I have to post both my reasons, and sign my
name in
> editing something, but you can "post anonymously". So in otherwords, to
edit
> I have to make myself vunerable, while the hate mongers can post
> anonymously. This policy is fucked. And I am unwilling to make myself
> vulnerable to attack for being a "volunteer".
3-I said before that i'm on the fence about using pseudonyms.  I
understand not wanting to open yourself up personally to attack from
these hate mongers.  I think you are being infalmmatory when you say
you're afraid they might firebomb your house, but the point is taken.
Please explain the solution to the problem of accountability.  Judy
alluded to some sort of editorial id# but it's still unclear.  That's
the bottom line for me:  how do we remain accountable to each other and
the users, and make this a smoother process.  I think it's kind of bogus
to say that it's too time consuming to have to send an email with a list
of articles that you've hidden.  the only part of that argument that I
agree with is the anonymity vs. potential harrassment part.

> 4. If this policy makes it so easy to hide posts, why aren't you Jason,
> actively hiding posts and emailing the list? I'll take a guess... because
> it's a pain in the ass. It takes longer to hide posts, than to post, then
> you have to email the group, and then someone will take you personally to
> task for what you did, or didn't do.
4- I've stated my opinion about the process of accountability.  you're
assessment of my reasons for heavy participation of lack of it don't hit
the mark.  me level of motivation to participate is a separate
discussion from this one.  I can understand that my low level of
editorial participation makes you less inclined to take my opinions
seriously.  There's nothing I can do about that. I obviously feel
strongly enough about this issue to participate in the discussion about
changing it.

> 5. Very few people read the IMC's newswire for Seattle News. Why would
they,
> it's a bunch of hate filled rants, from both liberals, and rightwingers...
> 6. ...Name all the active editorial members working on the site? Umm...
> yeah, that's right... pretty close to zero....
> 7. ...most of the posters to the site are not Independent Journalists,
> rather some are. The comments are in fact overrun by Trolls who simply rip
> people to shreds and call them names for posting stories.
> 8. There's people complaining on the site constantly, progressives who
call
> the site a Joke. People come to meetings to tell us we are fucked in the
> head... again progressives who are tired of the shit that is allowed to
> remain on the site.
5-8- I hear you're frustration and I want to help make it better.  I'm
not willing to let the policy be changed without thoughtful vetting
first though.  what yo seem to be leaving out of this though is
principle #3 of the current policy. Injurious language can also be an
opportunity fo insurrectionary response.  how do you know when something
crosses the line from being something that spurs insurrectionary
response to being something that's just too offensive to leave up.  I'm
willing to trust the editors to make that call but it's going to be a
hard question and not to be overlooked in an effort to make it easier to
hide hate speech.

> 9. There's no list of active editors, there's no clear policy for becoming
> an active member. What's the criteria for being an active editorial
member?
> I don't know, and I've been around for coming on 2 years now.
9- pretty vague requirements for membership in any working group at the
IMC.  Active participation and trust have been the basic requirements.
we've always talked about how someone ought to become familiar with the
process and history but never had any focus about making sure that happens.

> That's it for now... I am forgetting a few things. But basically, I think
> the policy as is doesn't clarify many issues, and opens editors to attack.
I
> will respond with additional comments as they come to me.
I could go on also.
I hope that you all know that I am intersted in improvement also.  I'm
sorry that my participation is frustrating to you.  I really believe
that the discussion is going to improve the outcome and that taking
appropriate time to make these decisions is to all our benefit.

> Also, I know there's others who agree with me... please don't just email
me,
> email the list. Otherwise it makes me look like I'm the only one who
thinks
> that the policy is not working as it exists (thanks to Judy).
I know there are others that agree with you.  I suspect that there's
noone who agrees 100% with me.  I hope that some see my points and find
my arguments valid at least.  what else can I do?

-Jason