[IMC-Boston-Editorial] editing website

[Sofia JarrinT]

Didn't mean to underestimate all the work you guys put
into this. Just a suggestion. 

--- Pete Stidman <pstidman at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Considering the amount of time that went into
> creating
> those categories, hours and hours of meeting time, I
> do not consider this to be a "small decision."
> 
> I don't mean to belittle the involvement of new
> editors, but it was said that editors that don't
> come
> to meetings will not be able to make decisions about
> the website.  This was actually discussed in the
> last
> website meeting and the last general meeting, so
> online decisions by those not coming to editorial
> meetings are not actually condoned by the full
> collective or the working group.  
> 
> I was afraid of this very thing happening, and it
> did.
> Meetings are where decisions are made in this and
> all
> of our groups.  
> 
> I don't think it would be appreciated if people were
> trying to make decisions about the video group by
> people who are not part of it so I don't see how
> this
> is happening. Especially now that I have raised a
> concern, that concern should be heard and it should
> be
> respected and the matter should be decided in the
> website meeitng. 
> 
> Everyone who is involved in that group can have a
> say
> on it.  
> 
> -Pete
> 
> 
> --- Sofia JarrinT <sofiajt at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > hi Pete,
> > 
> > I hope you don't think I'm saying something just
> to
> > contradict you. Like you, I don't want to enter
> > another conflict.  I'll just share a couple
> > suggestions and let it rest.  A couple things:
> > 
> > - not sure a mtg. is needed for a small decision
> > like
> > this, specially because not everyone can attend
> > meetings, and particularly because Svea & Jamie
> are
> > doing us a favor by upkeeping the site. Not sure
> > they'd be interested in attending editorial mtgs.;
> > 
> > - I agree that we do need a category for "war &
> > militarism" because of the ongoing wars, which are
> > not
> > about to stop anytime soon;
> > 
> > - about your concern ie, not choosing both
> > categories,
> > the same argument could be made for any of the
> > remaining categories. For example, someone could
> > choose Education for a workshop when they really
> > meant
> > Organizing. Or choose Human rights for a rally
> when
> > the really meant Race;
> > 
> > - there are clear instructions on the site on how
> to
> > select multiple categories. Although I agree we
> > don't
> > want too many of them, not having some key ones
> like
> > "war & militarism" or "globalization", for that
> > matter, limits people focus.  If they're looking
> for
> > stories on Iraq, for example, we wouldn't want
> them
> > to
> > go through every int'l, human rights, and politics
> > story out there. 
> > 
> > With all of that said, I think we need to find a
> way
> > of being able to reach consensus online about
> small
> > things like these.  
> > 
> > best,
> > Sofia
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- Pete Stidman <pstidman at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Welcome to editorial! 
> > > 
> > > To the war category.
> > > 
> > >  I know that there are some very sensitive
> > feelings
> > > that could easily turn an online discussion of
> > this
> > > or
> > > any topic into a warzone.  
> > > 
> > > I am very leery and even I guess, afraid of
> > entering
> > > into another conflict by expressing my opinion
> on
> > > this. 
> > > 
> > > I hope that my expression of an opinion is not
> > seen
> > > as
> > > controlling or overbearing, I only mean it as an
> > > opinion of mine, as one equal part of the
> > editorial
> > > group.  
> > > 
> > > I wonder if Matt mentioned the long drawn out
> > > dialogues and discussions that got the
> categories
> > to
> > > where they are, or if he described to you both
> > sides
> > > of the issue, the history of the whole thing.  
> > > 
> > > About a year or so ago we trimmed that list down
> > > considerably.  The reasoning behind it was that
> > > category list had something like 24 categories,
> > many
> > > of which were rarely used.  Categories became
> > > redundant or esoteric.  
> > > 
> > > So in collective groups we agonized over what to
> > > leave
> > > in for at least a few months untill we finally
> > > decided
> > > on the present situation.  
> > > 
> > > I think if we want to review that situation, we
> > > should
> > > do it in a collective editorial meeting, and it
> > > should
> > > not be a decision to be made online. But at the
> > same
> > > time I don't want to discount y'alls input, so
> let
> > > me
> > > just say my more specific reason for
> disagreeing. 
> > 
> > > 
> > > War was very much on the minds of the folks who
> > > created that list, Matt among them.  It was
> > thought
> > > that International could cover war and all
> > > international news. (much of which, from an
> > activist
> > > standpoint was war. globalization is a category
> > that
> > > covers another focus on international news) 
> > > 
> > > We in fact, used to have something like the
> > section
> > > you propose but combined it into international
> > > becuase
> > > the two seemed redundant.  I think it was called
> > > war/militarization even, but I could be
> > remembering
> > > wrong. 
> > > 
> > > When you come to categorizing a story about Iraq
> > for
> > > instance what would the average person do? A war
> > is
> > > in
> > > essence international and so would go under
> both,
> > > and
> > > most news that would go under international was
> > > about
> > > war anyway.  But then maybe some people would
> see
> > > international first and not put it in War, or
> vice
> > > versa.  I f that happened, even once, then later
> > on
> > > people would click into war and not see every
> war
> > > story.  
> > > 
> > > Of course it can never be perfect but we wanted
> to
> > > design it in a way that would make the
> categories
> 
=== message truncated ===



		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com