[IMC-Boston-Editorial] editing website

[Robert Baker]

Having sat through those meetings to pare down the amount of
categories, I can attest that it was no small task, and a simple "a
few of us thought to do this and I'll do it if no one blocks" is kind
of a meager nod to our previous work.  That having been said, I also
think we ended up putting way too much time into determining the
categories on the site.  They're categories.  Whoopiedoo.

Personally, I definitely see where Pete is coming from, but would like
to see this discussion take place on the lists simply so as not to
invade on meeting time for more precious matters.  But if Pete or
anyone has a concern we have to certainly take that at full value, no
less than any other.  Thanks, Pete, for bringing this up.

Having reviewed the discussion here, given my own changed perspectives
on categorization and the evolving direction of news posted to the
site, I'll vote yes for adding "War & Militarization."

Others, please chime in if nothing more than a yes or no.

r


On 10/4/05, Sofia JarrinT <sofiajt at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Boston-editorial mailing list
> Boston-editorial at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-editorial
>