[imc-oxford-features] deselected 422750

[Mr. Demeanour]

owen at riseup.net wrote:
> My position is: people connected to Oxford in some way *can* post to 
> OxIMC, but they need to make the link to Oxford obvious (to a casual 
> reader).
> 
[snip]
> 
> No wonder I was getting deja vu! In that last discussion (Jan 2005) 
> several people agreed that Oxford-relevance needs to be made
> explicit, not assumed on the basis of insider knowledge.

Thanks for remembering. I'm perfectly happy with the consensus we
reached back then (that the Oxford link must be explicit in the
article); I withdraw my earlier remark, and I'm happy to support Owen's
unclicking action.
> 
> Then, could we try and get consensus once and for all on the general 
> principle (that Oxford-relevance needs to be explicit), and reword
> our guidelines to make it clear?

As I say, I'm quite happy with the existing consensus.

Guidelines:
"Not Oxford relevant : posts which seem to have no particular relevance
to Oxford or the surrounding area will be hidden from Oxford indymedia,
but will still appear as normal on UK indymedia."

and:
"Examples of posts which are relevant to Oxford include (but are not
limited to) events happening in the Oxford area, experiences and reports
of individuals and groups from the Oxford area, etc."

I suggest the addition of verbiage something like this:
"For the avoidance of confusion, if an article's sole link to Oxford is
that the poster is connected to Oxford, that fact needs to be made
explicit in the article."

-- 
MrD.