[IMC-Boston-Editorial] sofia and policy

[Pete Stidman]

Hey folks, 

I don't have time to read the volumes but hopefully
this will address all concerns.  Eve Lyman, who heads
up Mobe is OK with my solution of posting her response
with the article that I have now unhidden.

I think we owe it to the authors to let it fly a full
run.  It was hidden for most of it's time in the
newswire.  Community accountability goes all ways, not
just for Mobe. 

I agree with Jamie in essence, dissent in the
community is a good thing.  Our best reaction to these
sorts of things is to investigate and come up with a
story that informs.  In this case I think Eve's
response helps for a quick fix.  

>From what Eve told me, Sofia, you did not ask her
whether the allegations were true or not, you just
asked her if it had come from Mobe.  When she said no,
you hid it, and I don't think that was the best
reaction.  SOmething needed to be done, so it was good
of you to catch it, I'm just saying in my opinion,
investigating it would have been better.  

-Pete


--- "visnusdream at juno.com" <visnusdream at juno.com>
wrote:

> i just want to say I'm glad there is some nice
> discussion going on about these issues.
> 
> Sofia, I think the lack of of "documentation" you
> mentioned is a significant problem. It has come up
> repeatedly. Unfortunately, I have no suggestions
> about how to solve it. We need a data base that is
> well organized, and search-able. I'm just not
> management savvy enough to even know where to look
> for the available software, nor do I have the skills
> to invent it. 
> 
> As you rightly point out the rules are clearly
> stated on the site; but when this latest article
> became an issue, one person made the point that we
> can delete whatever we want and we don't have to
> explain it. Although I respect the BIMC's right to
> do that, I think we should make every effort to
> explain our actions. I am posting the editorial
> guidelines from the site at the end of this message.
> None of them applies to the MOBE article. 
> 
> I don't even like the article; I think it was a
> ridiculous point to make. However, I agree
> wholeheartedly with tree monkey: we should feel
> compelled to explain to our contributors, with
> coherent statements, about why any particular
> article is deleted or hidden. 
> 
> There is quite a bit of criticism of MOBE on the
> site, but there is also a lot of criticism of
> ANSWER, the communists, the socialists, the
> capitalist, and the anarchist block. Whether we like
> it or not, the site is most frequently used by
> activists and they are likely to bring their
> differences of opinion to this forum. As long as the
> information is accurate, we should not get in the
> middle of these disputes, anymore than we should try
> to curb the dissemination of accurate but
> politically damaging information about the
> President. 
> In a democracy, criticism is healthy. 
> 
> If we don't let people post negative things about
> MOBE, how will MOBE's leadership even know these
> questions about their ethics are of concern to the
> community?
>  
> Think about how different things might have turned
> out if the IMC forum would have existed, providing a
> space for engaging conversation, during the last
> years of the Black Panthers, when the FBI was
> destroying them with subtle internal propaganda.
> Part of the reason some of those tactics were
> effective was because there was no single place were
> the rank and file members could come together to 
> discuss the pertinent issues with other members of
> the community. 
> 
> IMC helps break down barriers and hierarchies. When
> a vibrant discussion is taking place, with lots of
> different opinions being expressed, even if I think
> the topic is trivial, I believe it is in the best
> interest of all to allow the discussion to continue.
> 
> 
> I'm glad that we were able to have this particular
> article re-instated.
> Love,
> Jamie 
> 
> We have consensed on hiding the following types of
> posts: 
> 
> 1. Hate posts; posts that explicitly express sexism,
> racism, homophobia, or other forms of prejudice. 
> 2. Threats of Violence. 
> 3. Slanderous or libelous material. 
> 4. Personal attacks or insults. 
> 5. Advertising. 
> 6. Pornography. 
> 7. Duplicates or extremely similar posts. 
> 8. Disruptive or provocative material clearly
> intended to impede constructive activity on the
> site. 
> 9. Misinformation. 
> 
> We have consensed on deleting these kinds of posts: 
> 
> 1. Any hate posting that also carries media such as
> photos, audio or video clips (to prevent the use of
> our server as a linkable storage space) 
> 2. Any post by an individual known by Indymedia to
> have consistently acted in a disruptive manner and
> that the collective has unanimously identified as a
> sabateur. 
> 3. Stories, pictures, video footage or other
> material that could potentially incriminate or
> otherwise endanger activists. 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Boston-editorial mailing list
> Boston-editorial at lists.indymedia.org
>
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-editorial
> 



		
__________________________________ 
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs