[Imc-communication] An important discussion about new country vs. new city sites?
tony at cactusnetwork.org.uk
Thu Jun 16 13:17:07 PDT 2005
Yes this brings up some issues - but i don't see it as a problem...
Looking through the list - i came across 39 countries listed - mainly
in Europe and Americas - out of 160 odd - so about a quarter. It
seems this is different according to local needs and circumstances,
mainly because of scale - where it is not practical to have more than
one IMC in a small country, and some where the countries are so big
they do need wide representation.
Some are decentralised within the nation state - like UK and Italy,
where we do understand all the issues that come up when using
national boundaries. With the UK - when we started we had discussions
within the alt-media community (schnews, undercurrents, squall etc)
when we started and after long discussions we decided that it would
be good to have a site that covered more than just a city, as many
were already covered by different group, but it would be interesting
to have a common site. And with time we managed to co-ordinate with
many collective inthe UK to a truely decentralised site. Of course
there are many sensitive points around our imperialist history
especially in realtion to Wales, Scotland and Ireland, which we have
to work round.
Personally i think our situation the best solution - strong local
collectives that pool resources and energy to a creating a common
portal, and some of those collectives are now moving towards going
through new-imc to then be listed (if and when they want to) as an
individual city as well as under the 'UK', as local sites can often
have different priorities than nation wide ones (Bristol is a good
example of this) maybe we will all end up doing that?
Sometimes issues are nation wide - and it is interesting to see the
many different campaigns brought together under one feature, which
they wouldn't do if we were all separate sites. Sometimes a local
group will go through an energy crisis - and the others around can
help out and get them through, where as an individual site might just
have stagnated... just trying to think of more positive reasons
Anyway you get my drift - and don't really see the need for a default
position - i would think it is worth raising the issue as groups
apply for national names - but there is no reason that a city is any
more represented than a country by a group of indymedia vollunteers,
it is more how many people you can get to use the sites as they are
supposed to work - by posting!
one of imc-london/uk
At 19:55 -0700 15/6/05, Pete Stidman wrote:
>I hope I'm posting to the right list...
>In the past a number of sites have gone up as whole
>countries as opposed to the longer indymedia tradition
>of city sites.
>It seems to be causing some problems in Belgium now
>and could potentially cause many more problems in
>other future Indymedia countries that are even more
>What if we structured the new IMC process so that *as
>a default* city sites come first, country sites come
>when city sites combine efforts? We can always make
>exceptions to this case by case, but maybe it might
>help avoid future turmoil?
>Currently I don't think we have a default-
>A good piece of info for this would be: What was the
>first country site, and why was it a country and not a
>city? -( if someone knows..)
>In another sense, city borders are more natural than
>the boundaries between countries, and some nations,
>like the kurds for instance, are in several countires
>without their own sovereign nation. ( so it would
>make sense to have city sites, and then if they
>decided to they could make IMC kurdistan together- but
>then that's kinda odd to mix nationalism with IMC-
>which brings us back to the beginning- why borders? )
>Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out!
>IMC-communication mailing list
>IMC-communication at lists.indymedia.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the IMC-communication