[IMC-Boston-Editorial] editing website

[Sofia JarrinT]

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