[Imc-uk-features] inaccurate, speculative comment, no original grassroots news content

[Ben]

 >  I'm still of the understanding that we work as a collective, and  
that we aim to
 > reach on decisions. Unaccountable, non-transparent actions don't  
fit well into that model.

What decision is unaccountable.? It's here on the list and I've said  
I go ahead an unhide it if you think inaccurate speculation has a  
place on the newswire.

 > It was made clear on the thread that the matter had been raised in  
IRC and that
 > no-one had come forward and favoured hiding it

What thread? I have no idea what you are talking about and as people  
have pointed out to me in the past, stuff discussed on IRC doesn't  
really count as transparent unless copied to the list.

 > I am therefore unhiding it until a consensus is reached - it isn't  
just about
 > one post - there is clearly a clash of political viewpoints behind  
it, and
 > these need to sorted out so that we can adopt a consensed upon,  
consistent
 > approach to moderating......

Well, just a thought but we could always stick to the agreed  
guidelines. Clash of political viewpoints? I simply thought indymedia  
was a site for grassroots news reporting generated from within a  
movement of people engaged in the struggles being reported - the  
journal of the movement etc rather than a discussion forum where  
people comment and speculate about stories they've read in the  
mainstream media. I'll bet a significant sum of money that the author  
of the post hidden has no personal involvement with the events he  
referred to and got all his 'info' from the mainstream media. That is  
not indymedia and if it is I really don't know why we are bothering.

 > It would be helpful if people did express their views on how we  
deal with this
 >  post.

Indeed

Ben