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

[iggyp imc]

Dear All,
It's this type of fuking around that leads to a lot of activists not
bothering with Indymedia UK, and i understand why. What goes up seems to
depend on what admins think is a more important/relevant story, and the
usual lack of communication with people who submit their news just compounds
this impression

If people are going to be jumping all over features with comments such as 'i
didn't think anybody would do it', or that if they had noticed it, they
would 'not have allowed it to be put up', then indymedia deserves to be
junked as a one sided personal project (which it is not).

ALSO....if i had not put it up, would it have just festered in the email
list? No response to the requester? Again, i know people who have sent good
articles to the features list and gotten no response, so have taken articles
elsewhere (most noticeably, to be published in the Guardian).

SO, perhaps we should stick with the guildelines....
"if no one objects to the feature proposal within 24-hours, and if it is
completed, it will be uploaded to the middle column." . Discussion is good,
but at this stage the article has allready been taken down once (by an
admin), and now the user has asked that it be taken down due to our
behaviour (even though it is one of the front page stories on every paper in
London!!).

So, can we please all play nice? Let's remember that we are here to help
activists, not question them, badger them, or calculate their
'importantness' compared to other stories. At least then we have a chance of
engaging with people and ensuring that contributions from new sources
continue to come to Indymedia.

Iggy.




2009/1/11 ben gringo <gringoben at gmail.com>

> 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
>
> --
> Indymedia United Kollektives editorial mid-column features
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-uk-features
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/attachments/20090112/e98a75ec/attachment.htm