[IMC-Boston-Editorial] editing website

[Pete Stidman]

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
> > the
> > most useful from both the poster and the readers
> > perspective. 
> > 
> > So we could debate that for a while, but in any
> > case,
> > this is definitely something to send to the
> > editorial
> > meeting in the end and before anybody adds it.
> > Thanks.
> > 
> > 
> > -Pete
> > 
> > --- Svea Eppler <sveasca at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >      Hey folks.
> > > 
> > >      Yesterday, Matt trained Jamie and myself on
> > how
> > > to edit the website. We're working with Matt and
> > > doing
> > > some of the simple administrative stuff. We'll
> be
> > > asking him to look over our shoulder before we
> do
> > > any
> > > bigger administrative things but we should be
> > pretty
> > > set.
> > > 
> > >      One new idea we talked about yesterday was
> > > adding
> > > a "War" category to the "Feature Categories"
> > > section.
> > > There are so many war-related topics that all
> > three
> > > of
> > > us agreed that it would be a good category to
> add
> > > without making the Feature Categories list much
> > > bigger. Matt suggested something alone the lines
> > of:
> > > War & Militarization
> > > 
> > >      Anybody have any doubts about this idea? If
> > > not,
> > > we'll add the category in a couple of days.
> > > 
> > >      Cheers!
> > > 
> > >      S.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > "Once is by accident, twice is coincidence,
> three
> > > times is enemy action!" - good military advice
> for
> > > the modern media guerilla
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 		
> > > __________________________________ 
> > > 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
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 		
> > __________________________________ 
> > 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
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 		
> __________________________________ 
> 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
> 



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