[IMC-UK-Features] request for feature on indmedia g giggles

[ben gringo]

Mark wrote:
 > I don't quite understand what the criteria are for something being in
 > the middle column on the UK page, because I'm new,
 > so I'm following this with interest.

The static page containing the sites editorial guidelines has this to  
say about the IMC UK centre column features:
"The features on the middle column of the IMC UK website reflect  
postings to the newswire. Features are highlighting specific issues to  
make them more accessible. They are put together by volunteers  
communicating on the imc-uk-features list. Any individual can join the  
features list and propose a new feature for the middle column. A  
proposal can take the form of an idea or a completed feature.  
Completed features are usually between 50 and 80 words and include at  
least one link to the newswire, preferably also links to background  
information. If no one objects to the feature proposal within 24- 
hours, and if it is completed, it will be uploaded to the middle  
column. The 24-hour rule ensures that everybody can contribute to the  
middle column and allows time for collaborative improvements and  
considerations."
In reference to it being pointed out that sometimes announcements in  
the guise of features are tolerated in the centre column, phunkee wrote:
 > I did look through these promotional features before
 > I acted on the concerns outlined in the email. Fwiw, I still think  
they
 > have a lot more substance to them than the climate rush feature. For
 > instance, the Sequani demo annoucement involved raising awareness  
about
 > the imprisonment of Sean Kirtley. From what I can recall there  
weren't any
 > concerns raised about these features either, whereas this  
particular feature
 > did raise some concerns and in the interests of consensus based  
decision
 > making, these concerns should be addressed rather than ignored.
In the case of the Climate Rush feature there were no comments made  
within the 24 hours hour and so it was uploaded as proposed. Had  
issues been raised within that 24 hours it would have provided an  
opportunity to address concerns and improve the proposal before it was  
published. Is it happens, after it was posted there was one objection  
raised and then it was hidden. I personally don't think that is a very  
consensus based way of addressing concerns at all. Personally I don't  
think it was a very good feature either as first proposed as it  
ignored opportunities to highlight related news on related issues and  
that in by opinion is one of the core goals of a feature. It was  
however correctly proposed and by somebody who's not written a feature  
before so it would have been nice if the process was honored by  
indymedia itself since somebody took the trouble to make the proposal  
in the first place.
The 24 hour rule is meant to ensure we get the best possible features  
by a collaborative process, it's not simply about having somebody  
object and block a feature from going up. It's not clear what  
processes exits (if any) to handle concerns after a feature has been  
published as per process. I've personally objected to loads of  
features I thought were shit after they've been published and rarely  
if ever have my concerns been addressed. For example, the self  
indulgent BNP letter to indymedia feature which wasn't even posted as  
a newswire story before being turned into a feature or the first of  
the features regarding the gaza offensive which thankfully has now  
been superseded by an infinitely better feature about international  
protests etc.  In neither case did my objection translate into  
somebody suddenly pulling the feature just because I'd raised an issue.
The Climate Rush feature now contains more substance with reference to  
the Plane Stupid sentencing but even without it the feature did the  
job of highlighting the coverage of the previous Climate Rush etc. If  
it had been proposed a few months ago as a feature on the Climate Rush  
on parliament it would probably have been considered sufficient as a  
feature then and there is little reason for it not to be considered as  
a feature now (especially if people had provided constructive  
critisism to improve it rather than hide it).
We should be encouraging people to contribute features rather than it  
being the work of the few people who still engage in indymedia admin  
and we should always remember that indymedia coverage is not simply  
about reporting the past but also providing information for future  
action. While I wouldn't want to see the centre column turned into a  
coming events bill board, there is blatantly scope for features to  
draw together previous action AND draw attention to something people  
can get involved in.

Ben