[IMC-Boston-Editorial] policy dilemma, attn sally shears

[visnusdream at juno.com]

Why hasn't the article been put back up?

I didn't think the article was at all disruptive. In fact, it generated a lot of positive discussion. Since when are differences of opinion "disruptive?"
What does that mean anyway? I assumed it referred to articles with false statements, or innuendos, that were simply judgmental in nature, without any news content. This article was overtly biased but so is a lot of what we allow on the site. In fact, much of what goes into the New York Times is openly biased. 

Recently, we had a discussion about the labels used to categorize submissions. Some people wanted to change them, but it turns out that a lot of work had gone into the selection of the category headings now on the site. The idea of revisiting them didn't make much sense in light of the history.
I assume a similar situation pertains to the headings we use to hide or delete articles, but I have no idea. 
This is the main problem with the way the BIMC makes decisions. No accessible records are kept. Much of the hard work people do, the making of decisions in committees, using consensus, which takes tons of time, just evaporates when new people come in. We are constantly re-inventing the wheel.  

At this point, it is almost peripheral to our bigger problems, but the fact is, MOBE, an organization I like and have done work with, uses a questionable practice. People should be allowed to discuss it in the BIMC forum without threat of censorship. 

Will whoever hid this article un-hide it?

We should have an editorial meeting. 
The word "disruptive," as used on the wedsite's editoral pages, has never been defined to me, and apparently has not been clarified to other editors as well. 
There are, perhaps, many things we should discuss. 
Does anyone else have concerns about this or other policies?
Love and respect,
Jamie