[Imc-uk-features] Possible new guidelines that could be drawn from the recent imc-uk-features discussio

[Ben]

First off, I don't think the features list is a good place to discuss  
new guidelines which effect the whole network... but on the other  
hand I don't think chris is offering these up for serious discussion  
towards modified guidelines anyway.

 > The 24 hour rule for features applies for week days only
 >  - if a feature is proposed after 6pm on a Friday 48
 >  hours should be allowed before it is posted.

The 24 'rule' is intend to give time for collaboration and  
improvement. There is nothing to say that concerns and suggestions  
can't be taken into consideration after that time and in the past  
features have been pulled after being posted. There is no doubt that  
many members of collectives spend less time online at the weekend and  
so it's not surprising that people didn't see the proposal in a  
timely fashion. Wether that means the guidelines need changing is  
another mater. I

 > - Features must link to first hand grassroots reports of
 >  protest that have been originally posted to Indymedia
 >  and these reports must have first been promoted.

Currently, the guidelines we have about features are guidelines taken  
pretty much word for word from original indymedia site. It says there  
must be at least one link to a newswire article. At the time they  
were written there was no promoted wire. Thinking about how the  
promoted wire is meant to reflect the posts we consider to be closest  
to 'ideal' indy reports, and since the feature are meant to be  
highlighting the stories we consider shouldn't be missed and would  
work better together in context, it makes total sense that features  
should comprise mostly of promoted items. HOWEVER, it is misleading  
to suggest that we are talking solely of reports of protests. There  
are many reports of grassroots initiatives which do not consist of  
protest reports.

 >- Features can, on occasion, address political issues,
 >  'realpolitiks' or theoretical issues but only if there
 >  are first hand reports from people who have direct
 >  experience of the issue - features should not consist of
 > opinion or comment.

I think it's misrepresenting the situation to suggest that the recent  
debate has been about the political content of features. Mostly  
features get published without much collective or collaborative input  
and yet they come to represent the editorial output of the  
collective. For this reason I have always thought that features  
should generally do little more than quote and link the newswire  
articles which they are highlighting and not suggest any particular  
opinion from indymedia as a whole. If so, a problem occurs when  
features consist mostly of material not considered worthy of  
promotion as it probably consists of reposted opinion rather than  
grassroots involvement. Features based on commentary on recent events  
is always going to be prone to generate disagreement as our opinions  
obviously differ.

 >- Comments - Indymedia is not a discussion forum, it is
 >  not a place for debate, it is a place of action.
  > Comments should be used to add to articles and not for
 >  users to abuse our open publishing facility for their
  > own purposes.

This is already the case isn't it? I'm sure we've discussed this many  
times and that the changes to the way comments were displays was a  
result of that discussion. There are many discussion forums online,  
that is not what indymedia was set up to achieve. Forums requires a  
lot of admin and probably most of the indymedia admin is on comments.  
We clearly treat comment differently to articles, we don't generally  
report hides of comments and have a different level of tolerance in  
relation to publishing guidelines. I'm not aware of any shift in  
opinion on this generally so am surprised to see chris saying he  
wouldn't favor it.

 > I appears to me that some people want to steer Indymedia
 >down a NPOV [1] road, I think this is a mistake and it
 >flies in the face of "radical, accurate, and passionate
 >tellings of the truth" [2]

It's not about NPOV as the newswire is clearly consists of non  
objective reports and so the features which highlight them are also  
clearly going to be non objective. The issue is surely about what we  
collectively want to present as the visible face of indymedia, both  
in the newswire and in features. I and others have expressed that we  
are not happy to have indymedia represented by articles which offer  
unsubstantiated speculation as fact and so we hide them. With  
features (which are meant to highlight the content we do want on  
indymedia), I and others have expressed that we'd rather present what  
ordinary people are doing (ie' the grassroots initiatives reported in  
the newswire) than simply present our own opinion or commentary  
generated around mainstream coverage of events .

 > If we go down that road it would mean that indymedia
 > wouldn't be an "open-publishing platform for news, issues,
 >actions and analysis reporting on grassroots,
 >non-corporate, non-commercial social justice,
 >environmental and political issues" [4] and also it would
 >contradict the claim that "reports cover a wide range of
 >issues and social movements - from neighbourhood campaigns
 >to grassroots mobilisations, from critical analysis to
 > direct action." [3]

I really don't think so.

The debate is not about depoliticizing indymedia or, as phunkee  
suggested on IRC, turning indymedia into some kinda activist  
lifestyle magazine. The feature being discussion was a departure from  
the norm (although not the first such feature) and that's why it  
generated a bit of a shit storm. There have been other features in  
the past which generated similar concerns and perhaps would have been  
more suitable as ordinary articles posted in the newswire than center  
column features.

If new guidelines are needed (not just on features but also on  
comments, promotions and open publish generally), lets have some  
serious proposals rather than score pointing.

I feel that we'd have less conflict if we were clearly on definitions.

One that obviously comes up the most and is often contested is 'non- 
news' - "posts which are clearly purely comment, opinion or rants  
unrelated to a recent event or action etc."

As it currently reads, a rant which IS related to a recent event  
would seem to NOT breech guidelines. Is that what we want? Is that  
how we interpret it?

Discrimination is another one that's come up recently, "posts using  
language, imagery, or other forms of communication promoting racism,  
fascism, xenophobia, sexism, homophobia or any other form of  
discrimination." Again, as it reads, it could be argued that any  
single word which by itself promotes discrimination, would be grounds  
to hide an article even if the article itself did not promote  
discrimination. Is there a way we could be clearly or is this fine?  
Did we handle the issue over the use of the word retard correctly?

  How about the 'Inaccurate' guidelines, one that is used a lot to  
justify hiding. How do we KNOW if a post is really inaccurate or  
misleading? How do we cope with scientific or pseudo scientific  
claims we can't test ourselves rather than generally accepted or  
observable facts? Could we make this guidelines clearly by qualifying  
what we mean? Would it make sense to add something about  
unsubstantiated claims and speculation?

Advertising has also come up a bit recently. Does the guideline about  
posts with personal or product promotions adequately allow us to  
differentiate between articles or plugs for personal blogs? What does  
it mean for benefit gigs or fundraising efforts? What about links  
without content, do we judge the content on the page it takes us to  
or simply hide it as an advert?

We've also had problems with the Hierarchy guideline which states  
that "The newswire is designed to generate a news resource, not a  
notice-board for political parties or any other hierarchically  
structured organizations.". Different regional collectives and  
individuals interpret this in different ways and we clearly DO  
tolerate posts from groups which are hierarchical, for example  
unions, NGOs etc.

The biggest contention, currently at least, is the issue of reposts.  
Blogs didn't exist at the time these guidelines were written and  
there hadn't been the explosion of online resources where you no find  
content. However, our guidelines only speak about reposts from  
corporate news sites and it's unclear exactly what we mean by  
corporate in this context. However, the guideline is qualified by  
"Please write something original, by all means link to articles  
elsewhere and quote from them but don't just copy them." which  
certainly suggests it's not just 'corporate' reposts we were seeking  
to describe.

Anyhow, all this need to be discussed ASAP face to face before  
relationships break down further. As it stands we have some debate  
here in the features list and people slagging other people off behind  
their backs on IRC while perhaps most of the network isn't even aware  
anything is going on.


Ben