[Imc-uk-network] [Imc-uk-process] New aggregated UK Site
theinnercityhippy at riseup.net
theinnercityhippy at riseup.net
Sat Oct 17 01:46:51 PDT 2009
> JimDog wrote: "the indy uk site needs to be taken away from the exclusive
> control of the
> mir admins and belong to everyone and noone as is the anarchist way of
> doing things."
you're right, i should have been more specific and added that my objection
concerns the fact that the majority of these belong to people outside of a
collective process, by which i mean arranging and attending meetings and
having accountability to those in the areas that they represent. A good
example of this would be manchester, an imc with which we have very good
relations. They have publicly said that there is pretty much noone now
left using mir, yet i assume their logins are still active. Any of these
people have the capability to log people using the site, delete content or
cause all manner of other trouble (not that i'm suggesting anyone in
manchester would, it's just an example). Part of the new imc process
requires any collective to organise and find a group of people in
sustainable numbers which can then be recognised as ao imc. Could somebody
for example provide me a link to the last openly published minutes of imc
sheffield? Or tell me where their next meeting is to be held? We in fact
have sent a lot of people in the directions of these imc's this summer.
One person we tried to get in contact with imc birmingham was told she was
chased down the road by one of the people on this thread having abuse
shouted at her, that 'her and her partner had ruined the social centre'.
This was in public and many times over. This doesn't seem very inclusive
to me, and i reference it as one example of where my hostility to the way
things are done here (in my opinion a non participatory way) come from.
> ftp wrote: "There are 50 currently log-ins on IMC-uk, and no-one is
> preventing any of
> them from logging in and moderating the site.
Again, noone is preventing them from deleting or changing content in an
invisible way either, as there is no physical contact with their peers.
> "There would be more, but your collective decided to delete your own
> log-ins, and those of others who weren't consulted beforehand. And you are
> constantly calling for more to be excluded."
the logins that were deleted were all those created by the former leeds
bradford collective. I cannot see a viable argument as to why these should
have remained once we left mir? The one controversial login was that of
someone who had attempted to abuse that privilege previously as has been
explained in a previous email. I can't see why people would think it would
be the right course of action to leave these in place. This is also where
my concern stems from. If people can't be 100% sure that their details
aren't being monitored when posting, and there are no meetings to go to
where they can ask these questions, where is the trust?
> Hi JimDog
> Reading comments your comments about the anarchist way of doing things,
> I'm a bit perturbed.
> There might well be arguments for changing from mir to drupal or another
> system - some of them have been discussed in detail at previous uk network
> meetings (attended by collectives from the uk site as well as from other
> local sites using other systems).
> However, there is a collective process in indy for discussing, deciding
> and making such changes. Comments like 'the indy uk site needs to be taken
> away from the exclusive control of the mir admins' is not remotely
> helpful. As far as I'm aware, mir is an open system and the words
> 'exclusive control' aren't really accurate, are they? Making unfounded
> allegations and then recommending hostile action against the alleged
> perpetrators smacks more of Bush and Blair to me than the anarchist way.
I started using drupal as this seems to be the solution most discussed at
the last network meeting. Throughout the summer, talking to literally
thousands of people about indymedia, the common theme that kept recurring
for those who have previously had contact is that there is a perceived
heirarchy. This has been confirmed in a previous thread earlier this year
by mike as i recall when it comes to technical upkeep of the mir system so
i don't believe these allegations are unfounded. Also, a horizontal way of
doing things would allow me to raise what i believe to be legitimate
concerns without being rounded on by the same 5 or 6 people each time,
without (all credit to tony for trying) some kind of neutral facilitation.
This is a common pattern, whether it is me, mark, ben, iggy or whoever is
doing the questioning.
An interesting thing i noticed when doing this experiment was not
including the world news on the aggregator. Without this, there is
actually very little news coming from the regions. Since anarchism is
based on local organisation and collective ownership, i think this flags
my concerns up to be valid, though this isn't a neutral forum to raise
such concerns. I do not think however they are unfounded, nor do others.
The difference is though that i am the only one bullish enough to speak
out, so it is fine to attack me, the underlying issues need to be
> Unilaterally deleting other people's log-ins doesn't seem like the
> anarchist way either. I seem to recall some people were very upset about
> the way this was done.
> We are all part of the indymedia network and as such we have lots in
> common with each other. Rather than these constant attacks on the uk
> site, why don't you concentrate on making the northern site a shining
> example of indymedia excellence which all will want to emulate? And if
> they don't, well I think there's something in the global indy principles
> about respecting the autonomy of other collectives to make their own
I agree, this is what we are trying to do. I had made a real effort before
this to keep things positive, as i am now being mocked for by some. I
admit i am overheated at the moment as a result of the uk newswire being
allowed to be used as a platform for attacking our imc and our local
social centre. This has to be reciprocated- you leave us alone and we will
happily do our thing away from all this. I note with interest that at this
time, comments attacking our process and structure are still on the
newswire. It has been said that these will remain until we actively
complain. Why is this? Just to be clear, we would never allow an article
or comment to remain on our newswire unmoderated that is directly
attacking another imc or singling out one person for abuse. We would like
this to be reciprocated and that is not an extreme request in my view.
Having disagreements on mailing lists (one which i am about to leave) is
one thing, but on the newswire strays into open and shameful hostility.
I'm going to bite my tongue on all this from now on and let it all go.
> Global solidarity too, eh?
Absolutely. Solidarity with imc's globally is the reason we are persisting
with the new imc process.
> Best wishes
Me too. No hard feelings to anyone. I am hardheaded and blunt but not the
only one. I don't mean any harm and hope for better relations in the
> freethepeeps at riseup.net wrote:
>> JimDog wrote:
>> "the indy uk site needs to be taken away from the exclusive control of
>> mir admins and belong to everyone and noone as is the anarchist way of
>> doing things."
>> There are 50 currently log-ins on IMC-uk, and no-one is preventing any
>> them from logging in and moderating the site.
>> There would be more, but your collective decided to delete your own
>> log-ins, and those of others who weren't consulted beforehand. And you
>> constantly calling for more to be excluded.
>> So, what are you basing this claim on?
>> And where is your answer to phunkee's question?
>> Imc-uk-network mailing list
>> Imc-uk-network at lists.indymedia.org
>> Also other list of similar interest Indymedia United Kollektives
> Imc-uk-network mailing list
> Imc-uk-network at lists.indymedia.org
> Also other list of similar interest Indymedia United Kollektives process:
More information about the Imc-uk-network