[Seattle-editorial] the editorial working group

[Sheri Herndon]

hi benjamin,

i don't have alot of time to write a thorough response and i can only speak for myself, but i think you misinterpreted my response pretty badly.  i suppose that's the way email works.  when we can't sit face to face with each other and actually talk through things.  

your tone is really antagonistic and i for one do not feel it is deserved.  we don't need this kind of tone to help us work through things.  your questions are valid ones and so are your concerns, but your tone does not help with dialogue at all.

>> i like this idea.  perhaps a paragraph up front
>> about the participatory nature of the website and
>> our goals/objectives and the nature of open
>> publishing.  and feedback being a critical part of
>> that.
>
>
>This response brings up a number of serious concerns I
>have.  "I like this idea" implies that the group has
>not already assumed that this is the best thing to do.
> Is this something Tech has asked us to do before, but
>for some reason we don't want to do it?  (Yes, the
>main reason why I did write this article was to
>address a concern brought up by Tech at the meeting
>where they taught us how to use the new page.)
>
i can't speak for the group but what i mean by i like this idea and/or i second this proposal, which was basically what that means, is that we should be asking the public waht they want.  if you look back into the archives you will find that i have mentioned this idea more than once.  so perhaps my i like this idea is somewhat ironic.  of course we need to be asking our readers what works for them what doesn't.  feedback.  i'm all for it.  and we need more of it.  

i imagine this feature proposal is one step in what should be an ongoing process.  we've never asked our listeners/readers/viewers what they want from this site.  we've never really asked our community at large either.  i think we should do this and that is why i wrote i like this idea.  
>
>I have mentioned the follwing concern before, and have
>not gotten straight answers about it.  Let me ask this
>question now:
>
>Are we in competition with the public, or are we in
>collaboration with the public?  Are we interested in
>what they have to say, or are we only interested in
>having a place to put up our own stories?

if we are in competition with the public, something is terribly wrong.  if you want to take a poll of the people on this email list about the answers to these questions, i think we have a problem in our group.  

>Please answer!  This is a NOT a rhetorical question or
>an accusation. I really cannot tell and do not know!

this is sad.  
>
>As far as me doing a paragraph on either the virtues
>of open publishing, or the goals of the editorial
>team, I am totally unqualified to write on either
>subject.  I certainly do not understand either subject
>at all: I'm uncovinced that as a group we believe in
>open publishing, (if so, why do we tolerate it being
>scrambled by newswire spam,) and it's very unclear to
>me what the goals of the editorial team are, and I do
>not understand why an editorial team should even have
>"goals."  It seems like "goals" creats a very extreme
>bias, which brings me to the second reason why I did
>not introduce this artical like that:

i would say simply that sharing with the larger community that they actually have a voice and that they can use the newswire for their own stories and sharing what open publishing actually is is precisely what makes us NOT in competition with the public.  i for one have seen many people and groups not even get that they can self-publish.  i saw this feature as another opportunity to remind them.  also, that they can suggest what stories could be published to the features column.  it is not about US on this editorial list, it is about the community.


>I think we want "the truth" from our readers, NOT "the
>correct answer."  I think a paragraph introduction to
>our "goals and virtues" is a great way to give people
>"the correct answer" we want to hear, instead of
>getting their honest opinons.  Which do we want, their
>honest opinions, or just a log of them agreeing with
>us?  If it's our goal to trick them into agreeing with
>us, then I can do a much better job of writing this article!!!

i would agree.  and it's strange that you arrive at this answer from my suggestion for more explanation of what we are hoping to achieve from this newswire.  i feel pretty attacked in this email.  perhaps you are just venting, but gee......a paragraph talking about how the editorial list works and how people can get involved and or the idea of a public media space without censorship but with criteria as well as explaining how we might be using the site with categories etc. didn't seem like a bad idea.  

your last comment benjamin is completely out of place here.  tricking them?  are you suggesting that i or someone else on this list wants to trick them into agreeing with us?

your last comment is way off base.

sheri



>=====
>-Benjamin 
>
>"BFGalbraith"- bfgalbraith at users.sourceforge.net 
>(H&S Project Manager- http://hack-and-slash.sourceforge.net)
>Galbraith Games Website- http://www.squawkrpg.net/news
>Why I am looking for another e-mail service:
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
>http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
>_______________________________________________
>Seattle-editorial mailing list
>Seattle-editorial at lists.indymedia.org
>http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/seattle-editorial
>