david at heartofdarkness.org
Sun Jan 11 17:42:29 PST 2004
i have proposed that we create [imc-pgh-hidden] and to move
announcements about hidden posts to that list (using the "automatic"
feature of sf-active). evan's, matt's and andy's recent posts about my
proposal raise several important questions about our editorial policies.
1. implicit consent or explicit consent?
do we require all members to give their explicit consent to all hidden
posts? clearly the answer to that question is "no", since that's not
what we've been doing. rather, it seems we require only implicit
consent. implicit consent means, "unless you hear me object, i support
2. scope of implicit consent?
of course, implicit consent can be either informed or not. do we expect
every member of the collective to read every message about hidden
posts? i don't think that's what we've been doing (for one thing, it is
totally unenforceable), nor do i see why should we require it. what we
have been doing thus far -- which i think it totally appropriate -- is
trusting other members to raise questions if a hidden post is
3. trust or anti-trust?
the core issue, it seems to me, is trust. do we trust our fellow
editorial members judgment?
i'm sure we all do. this is not to say that we are infallible, but
rather that i trust an editor to recognize a potentially controversial
decision, or others to raise questions about problematic decisions
already make, and bring it to the group when it arises.
in reply, one might argue that having messages go to another list will
make it easy for people to ignore, which thus lowers the probability
that a potentially problematic decisions will be spotted. while there
is some merit to that argument, i believe that making more work on the
back end is not desirable. rather, it is better that we consent to
clear and specific policies up front.
4. what is the primary mission for the editorial collective?
even more fundamental that trust is the question of whether or not we
want a large part of the ed. collective's mission to be policing the
site and each other. certainly hope that is isn't. i would much rather
we put our energies into create better features or adding more useful
content to the site.
chances are that improving the site will also make policing less
necessary, since folks are less likely to post a disruptive article or
comment to a site that is overflowing with interesting and useful
-- back to my proposal --
my proposal would, in affect, change the policy as it now exists on
<http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/process/openpub.php#ed> to read as
When a post has been hidden, a message is automatically sent to the
list imc-pgh-hidden at indypgh.org identifying the article and the reason
why it was hidden.
[note: that list would be an announcement only list]
one implicit policy that my argument entails is that IF folks are
unsure about hiding something, THEN they will post a message to this
list so we can discuss it.
in addition, i am also suggesting that we create more specific policies
about hiding posts, particularly comments. but that is a subject for
On Sunday, January 11, 2004, at 01:47 PM, andybot wrote:
> i would say, no and yes. meaning, this "hidden" list would be the only
> place where those emails go, but everyone on editorial would have to
> be on
> this list. but then, as i think of it, that really wouldnt change much,
> other than putting us all on ANOTHER listsev. hehe.
> david, the point that is broached with matt's question is that we email
> our hidden post id's to one another as a part of the consensus process.
> everyone on editorial needs to know what everyone else is doing and
> theoretically check up on them and block any hides that they feel are
> inappropriate. this might be a drag, but it's important to the process.
> i'm not really sure, upon further review, if adding another listserv
> really streamline anything. but obviously this is up for discussion.
> it could.
> much love
> On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 mtoups at andrew.cmu.edu wrote:
>> two questions:
>> so, will editors still be required to email
>> the editorial list of their actions?
>> will everyone on this list (editorial) be subscribed
>> to this new list (hidden)?
>> (this page will have to be updated if these changes
>> are implemented.)
>> On Sat, 10 Jan 2004, David Meieran wrote:
>>> i vote against having these messages come to this list. my counter
>>> proposal is to have them go to another list [IMC-pgh-hidden] so that
>>> people can choose whether or not to receive them.
>>> let's use this for list discussion & decision-making.
>>> as an added bonus, having them go to [IMC-pgh-hidden] also increases
>>> our transparency slightly, in so far as it makes it little easier for
>>> folks to see why posts where hidden (by checking the list archives).
>>> On Saturday, January 10, 2004, at 07:23 PM, andybot wrote:
>>>> i say turn em on , just let everyone know when you do.
>>>> On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, John Harrold wrote:
>>>>> Sometime in January mtoups at andrew.cmu.edu assaulted the keyboard
>>>>> | the automatic emails are not turned on yet (i only
>>>>> | sent one as a demo) -- there seemed to be some
>>>>> | complaining about this issue.
>>>>> | should we turn on the automatic emails (since handwritten
>>>>> | ones to the editorial list are required by the policies anyway)
>>>>> | or should we set a formal proposal with deadline and such?
>>>>> i think you should turn them on. i don't think this really
>>>>> requires a
>>>>> proposal, but if necessary then go ahead and do it.
>>>>> | /"\
>>>>> john harrold | \ / ASCII ribbon
>>>>> jmh at member.fsf.org | X against HTML
>>>>> the most useful idiot | / \
>>>>> What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the
>>>>> whether the mad destruction is brought under the name of
>>>>> totalitarianism or
>>>>> the holy name of liberty and democracy?
>>>>> gpg --keyserver keys.indymedia.org --recv-key F65A739E
More information about the IMC-pgh-editorial