[Imc-uk-features] hidden article 372 403

[Genny]

Hi Maqui

I agree that the post was excellent, and I didn't want to hide it for 
that reason, which is why I initially just changed the offending word 
and posted a query to the features list.

I only hid the report later in the day when I saw that the word 'retard' 
had been reinstated. I then emailed guido to ask for his permission to 
change the word, which in retrospect I should have done earlier on, but 
it did cross my mind that dealing with emails might not be top of his 
agenda.

I didn't hide the post as a permanent measure, but couldn't see what 
else to do in the circumstances.  My own feeling was that changing one 
word was acceptable, but there were strong views that this was a 
dangerous precedent - fair enough - it may well be.  What I couldn't 
support was the word 'retard' used in the context of a description of a 
  violent policeman, being left up on the newswire.

I totally accept what you're saying about the circumstances in which the 
report must have been written - I have enough trouble thinking of the 
right words when I have all day to just sit and type and retype.  I'm 
not blaming guido for using the word - I'm sure it was just done without 
thinking - but that doesn't make it any more acceptable to leave up on a 
site that's actively challenging oppression and discrimination.

I don't think the issue is anything to do with bureaucracy and 
guidelines and rigidity etc.  It's about finding ways to ensure that 
discriminatory words, however innocently posted, are removed as quickly 
as possible.  Surely that's what we would all want, whether or not there 
are any guidelines to tell us so?

Genny

maqui wrote:
> Hi
> 
> My five pence worth on this. Short (and maybe sharp) coz i'm on the 
> move and haven't got much time.
> 
> I can understand (and respect) what Genny says here, that to use the 
> word retard is descriminatory, but i CAN"T BELIEVE it was hidden given 
> the quality of the post, the circumstances in which it was put 
> together, the amount of work and experience it takes to be able to take 
> these pics in such a situation, the history of excellent reports Guido 
> has contributed to imc-uk over many years, and all wrapped up, with the 
> fact that rostock right now it is not the best place to stop and think 
> if every word one uses is 100% correct or not.
> 
> I'm sorry, but this makes me furious, specially comments such as 
> freethepeeps' :
> :
>> And if guy is pissed off - hopefully it will be at himself for using 
>> the term in
>> the first place.
> 
> i mean c'mon, has indymedia uk become some sort of rigid fucking 
> burocracy now!  since when the guidelines have become rules set on 
> stone, and since when trust in people (in this case trust in guy as a 
> compañero and imc volunteer for many years) doesn't weight more than a 
> fucking guideline. i can easily imagine guy writing this report after 
> having put himself in a considerable deal of danger (remember evian?!)  
> many of us now him as a sound / committed person that doesn't go around 
> discriminating people easily. c'mon let's use some common sense!
> 
> i'm glad that the post is back online and that it was hidden only for a 
> short period of time, but if indymedia uk is moving towards such a 
> rigid structure, please let me know, coz these are precisely one of the 
> things i'm fighting against.
> 
> sorry, this mail is a bit rushed and if it sounds angry is not meant 
> personally coz i can see gennys point and respect freethepeeps work, 
> but the hidding is what worries me. i just expect indy to be able to 
> put things in context, and i want it as a place where people (specially 
> compas) weight far more than a guideline.
> 
> guy, keep on reporting mate! .. i can hear from here your "what!? ff 
> sake!!" :-)
> 
> maqui
> On Monday, June 4, 2007, at 05:44  pm, Genny wrote:
> 
>> Hi Guido
>>
>> I read your indymedia article 372403 this morning - great stuff! - but
>> was concerned at the use of the word 'retard' (see below).
>>
>> As a new admin I didn't know what to do, but I didn't want it left with
>> a clearly discriminatory phrase in the report, so I changed retard to
>> sadist and sent a query to the features list about whether this was the
>> right action.
>>
>> There's been some discussion today on the list.  Someone suggested
>> 'stupid' would be a better replacement.  Ben has changed the word back
>> to retard because he didn't feel it was right to mess around with
>> someone else's work - it should be hidden or left or your agreement
>> asked for.  I think that strictly this is correct, but because it was a
>> great report I really didn't want to hide it.  However, I don't think 
>> it
>> can be left as it is, so I have just now hidden it and I'm writing to
>> ask your agreement for a word-change so it can go back up.
>>
>> Perhaps you can reply to imc-features so this can be sorted asap.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Genny
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Internal comments from admin:
>>
>> ad_nauseam promoted
>>
>> I was going to hide this for discrimination: "The cop in question is
>> wearing a riot helmet with a ski mask underneath so his face is not
>> visible anyway. Either he is just looking for someone else to pick on,
>> or he is a complete retard" implies that people with learning
>> disabilities would generally behave like this.  But it's a great report
>> otherwise, so for now I've just changed "retard" into "sadist", 
>> although
>> it now sort of says: he's a sadist or he's a sadist!  Couldn't think of
>> anything else to do.  Should I have hidden the post?  Is it acceptable
>> to alter other people's work? Genny
>>
>> ben - changed it back. either it should be hidden or left alond. or ask
>> guy to change his article himself.
>> 2007-06-04 17:28 genny hide
>>
>> I'm unhappy that this is now on the site with the word 'retard' again,
>> so I'm hiding it temporarily and will email guido who I hope will agree
>> a rewording.  Genny
>>
>> --
>> Indymedia United Kollektives editorial: features and wire moderation
>> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-uk-features
>>
> 
> 
> --
> Indymedia United Kollektives editorial: features and wire moderation
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-uk-features
>