[Imc-uk-network] ESRC funded research project on Indymedia UK]

[Ilyan]

Are the people making a fuss about not being informed newcomers, or 
people with bad memories.   I am certain there was discussion  about a  
University  research project in IMC lists, perhaps it was two years 
ago.  Otherwise I would not know about it.  The important thing is that 
results are available to everyone, not stashed away copyright in a 
University Library no one can get to, and that personal details are 
anonymised  and records of such destroyed.   They probably never 
collected them.

Ilyan


mish wrote:
>> This leads me on to the other point, which is that (and now I am 
>> re-telling anecdotes, so can't be 100% sure, but think it too 
>> important not to mention) one of the problems around 'informing the 
>> imc lists' was that one or more people in the organising group of the
>> alt-media-res project thought it not necessary to make such an  
>> official introduction to the imc lists, since they were involved and
>> contributing to indymedia, and as such were indymedia themselves, and
>> thus Indymedia was already 'informed'.
>>
>> Now, not wanting to to go off on one (cos this is an issue that can be discussed
>> again and again - eg who is indymedia - we are all indymedia! - four legs good,
>> two legs bad - activist media or media activists? etc etc etc), but there were
>> clearly different perceptions about what constitutes "indymedia". 
>>
>> I reckon the "list-based" indymedia and infrequent network meetings along with
>> local collective meetings are what constitute the sovereign (crap word I know)
>> decision making mechanisms of Indymedia uk, and thus are what constitute
>> "Indymedia" when the term is used in any official-ish capacity. And in this
>> case I don't think there is any doubt that the project should have informed the
>> main lists at an early opportunity, or presented itself at a suitable meeting
>>     
>
> Assuming this account is true, I find it hard to believe that the people
> in question truly believed that indymedia was informed because they
> themselves were informed.  On that basis I would never forward emails
> from national lists to my local collective, because I knew it so
> therefore my collective knew it!  The premise seems absurd - more of a
> self justification for not doing something they don't want to do for
> some other reason.
>
> As to "who is" indymedia, a partial answer that we have in cambridge is 
>
>         "The Cambridge IMC recognizes that a prerequisite for
>         participation in the decision making process of each local group
>         is the contribution of an individual's labour to the group."
>
> www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/cambridge/static/unity.html - item 7
>
> That is, to have a say in decision making, you must contribute your time
> and effort to the group.  (And we don't generally consider only posting
> to the newswire as contributing to the group, though I guess there might
> be a case to be argued for that).  So for indymedia UK, those people are
> on email lists, and going to local collective meetings and the
> occasional network gatherings.  (As Dave identified).
>
> I wouldn't expect the researchers to necessarily offer us work, give us
> rights to decide what their work was or how the money was spent.  But
> being informed that this was going on would have been at least polite.  
>
> And as there are some long term indymedia people involved in the project
> and they weren't publicly telling other indymedia people they were doing
> this work it could make for some odd dynamics when it comes out -
> wondering why other people are really in a meeting.  No idea if this has
> happened, and I don't personally feel anything bad about the people I
> know were involved, but it still seems a bit weird.
>
>   
>>> Is it ok to forward this message to them?
>>>       
>> It's a public, archived list. I don't think you need anyone's 
>> permission.
>>     
>
> True, but given where this issue has got to, I think making extra effort
> and being more explicit about asking permission now is a good thing.
> For the record I'm happy for this email to be forwarded.
>
> mish