[imc-uk-moderation] Query about promotion. BLOCK

[guidoreports at riseup.net]

Ok,

I have thought long and hard about this and I am blocking the promotion of
the Rovics article:

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/04/395207.html?c=on#c192641

I have never blocked anything on this site before and I fully agree with
everything that Maqui says below. Myself I think that the article by
Rovics is an excellent piece of analysis and it also sums up my views on
the subject very well. As does the piece by Schnews and the article by
Monbiot that I posted as a comment to it. I also agree that the article is
the first such piece on the wire for a while and does give the other side
of the argument. Though this is because unlike the truthers those who
actively oppose them are not running a deliberate campaign to target
indymedia having had every other door closed to them.

However looking at the way the truthers and their sponsors behave both
here and elsewhere the promotion of this article will set a very dangerous
precident. If it is promoted then those who would happily see imc uk turn
into 'conspiracy media' will be given a green light to do just that. They
will be able to promote any 9/11 truth crap which they consider to be
'good analysis' while giving the false impression that IMC UK somehow
endorses it. If the reaction from our regular users to the article is
anything to go by, then the opposite is true.

The Rovics article also appears on his blog. By promoting this we would
also be potentially endorsing the pasting of hundreds of articles that
already appear on the dozens of blogs and sites dedicated to 9/11 truth.
This could open the floodgates for the newswire to not only be spammed
with this garbage but also for those operating at the behest of the
truthers to promote it. Anyone who thinks I am being over anxious about
this really should listen to this mp3 which is also being debated in the
comments on the Rovics article:

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/media/2008/03//393372.mp3

The most valid point on this subject was recently made by Tony who pointed
out that there are dozens of forums and websites dedicated to this
nonsense. So why Indymedia?

Myself, I would happily see a partial or total ban on this stuff similar
to that put in place by NY IMC. I know that is unlikely to happen. But if
it is wrong for 9/11 truth drivel to be promoted (which I think it is)
then it is equally wrong for an anti-9/11 truth article to be promoted no
matter how balanced and well written it is. I don't beleive in operating a
policy of double standards over this or anything else.

Hopefully we will get the opportunity to examine this subject at the next
network meeting. Though to be honest I was speaking to some folks at the
Sumac last monday and what they had to say about the last meeting and the
behaviour of some, did not fill me with hope.....

regards

G.

P.S. I will send this to the two individuals who brought this up at the
screening the other night. I am assuming that JP and Bob Maycock are
already on this list.




> Hi
>
> On Tuesday, April 1, 2008, at 11:59  pm, guidoreports at riseup.net wrote:
>
>> I was at the screening of 'On the Verge' in London tonight and no less
>> than two individuals commented on this piece of analysis:
>> http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/04/395207.html
>> and asked me why it had not been promoted? I don't usually get
>> involved in
>> debates over promoting analysis unless I think that someone is pushing
>> their own agenda. To be honest reporting is more my subject.
>>
>> Obviously I make no secret of the fact that the author is a friend of
>> mine
>> and he has summed up my views on the subject pretty well. A lot more
>> politely than I would, if the truth be known. But it occurs to me that
>> it
>> is an original piece of analysis. That has been posted by the author
>> and
>> is not a repost from a blog as it appeared on IMCs both here and in the
>> states at the same time that authors email list was updated along with
>> his
>> own site. It has also been very well recieved by users of this site if
>> the
>> comments attached so far are anything to go by. I won't promote it
>> myself
>> as I think I am a bit too personally involved to be objective but I
>> would
>> like to know what others think so I can at least reply to the two
>> individuals I spoke to earlier. One of whom is on this list and posted
>> on
>> another topic earlier today.
>
> Then  On Thursday, April 3, 2008, at 03:47  pm, ana wrote:
>
>> However, given the amount of stuff about the 9/11 thruth thing that
>> does
>> not get hidden or promoted, maybe it would be worth to promote this to
>> distinguish it from the rest ? what do others think?
>>
> I must admit that I agree with Guido and Ana here. I know that the
> newswire is more a place for action reports than analysis, but because
> as ekes says this is the only wire we have until there's a new design
> of the front page, it is also true that sometimes good, first hand
> analysis has been promoted. And i think that is precisely why the
> current Editorial Guidelines state:
>
> "In general, posts meeting the following guidelines will be promoted:
>
>      * original, first hand reports on actions and other events
>      * good, original analysis"
>
> I do think that David Rovic's essay is both good and first hand, and it
> is one of the few pieces about the '9/11 truth' issues that have been
> posted on the site that put a thorough case for a dissenting view of
> the usual 'truth' stuff being allowed to stay in the wire. Also as
> Guido notes, it has created one of the biggest reaction of argumented
> comments to a single post for a while, whereby users and contributors
> to the site have added their views as comments. And as such it is
> worthwhile promoting imo. I think the guideline above about 'good,
> original analysis' is there for exactly these sort of posts, where
> moderators think that are worthwhile top promote even though they are
> not action reports. If its not or this reason, then why is the
> guideline in there?
>
> The last article published in the site expressing the similar views on
> this issue was schNEWS article over a year ago, and since then this
> view on 911 truth stuff has largely been missing in the wire, whilst we
> had laots of 'truth' material on the site. Also the comments posted to
> it seem to point out to the fact that a large community of users of the
> site agree on that standpoint to the issue. Adding to the fact that,
> there seems to be a few voices saying that the post should be promoted
> - and I add mine too - I would like to propose to promote the posting
> tomorrow unless there is a direct block to do so, not a disagreement,
> but an outright block.
>
> Having said that, yup I agree with Ekes that for him  the newswire is
> just crap for promoting discursive posts on", and that starting to
> promote analysis (personal views on things) on the main wire is a
> dangerous and complicated ground. I also agree with the fact that there
> should be and analysis wire up and running as soon as possible.
>
> Cheers
>
> maqui
>
> PD; Finally, and in a completely different note, and after having been
> away for a few days in the country side with no internet, i raise my
> hat to everyone involved in the two top features currently on the
> middle column. I think the quick response (feature) to the repression
> going on in Romania against anti-nato activists it ace. Cheers!
>
>
>
>