[Imc-uk-features] [imc-uk-tech] Its happened again!

[jagmad at riseup.net]

> [the original *did* go out on imc-uk-features; I'm posting follow-up
> that was on imc-uk-tech to there too; as that is the correct place]
>
> jagmad at riseup.net wrote:
>> My suggestion was that IMCUK should emulate the openess of Japan IMC by
>> adding to the 'view all' hiddens section a separate list of items that
>> have actually been deleted, something IMCUK could clearly do. Obviously,
>> if such an addition is made to the site it would probably be by someone
>> on
>> the tech list and that is why I cross posted to it.
>
> Politically: Looking at the 'deleting' posts section it's full of what
> IMC UK hides - so I'm not sure it's any more open. For those who haven't
> seen it Doug's post is there with 'Chuckman', 'Bobby Meade' 'Eric May'
> and other serial cross-IMC re-posters, them and reposts of content from
> other sites elsewhere on the web. If something were removed for legal
> reasons there would be an issue anywhere about leaving details about it.
> So unless there is a change of IMC UK policy about hiding and removal I
> can't see we are talking about the same thing at all.
>
Japan has two distinct sections, 'hidden articles', which can easily be
read, and 'deleted articles' which can't be read at all. IMCUK just has
'hidden', which can only easily be read by highlighting the text. I think
it is important that the general reader should be able to see if an
article has been removed and why, without necessarily being able to read
it, as this would be a much more open policy and would eliminate some
doubts about how the editorial guidelines are implemented.
>
> Technically: Japan is a standard DadaIMC set up. The IMC UK Mir set up
> presently has a 'view all posts' section with all hidden items and also
> non-hidden items. Even if it were a good idea politically to change the
> way IMC UK deals with it's trash (and it might be) I think I can safely
> say no one is going to develop a section on IMC UK Mir for a separated
> with the titles of removed content. This is because frankly no one is
> really developing anything for Mir and lots of people are looking into
> new CMS'.
>
Point taken.
>
> For the future discussion I think the presentation of content, and where
> you can get to it on the site, is going to be a much bigger discussion.
>
> As a general rule yes it's good for open publishing to have an easy
> section to look down and see what's been removed and why it's gone. Mir
> isn't the easiest for this. I'm sure alternative systems will be.
>
Something we can look forward to.

Doug.