[Imc-uk-process] Re: The state of the Hiding policy in IMC-UK

[maqui]

Hiya

I think zcat's email below raises very interesting pints, whilst, at 
the same time it offers a clear insight into what indymedia is for him. 
It will probably help people understand his positions in relation to 
the wire  and its maintenance.

So cheers zcat. I personally agree with a few of the points he raises 
here, others I am not too sure about. Also, I have to admit that for 
quite a while I am guilty of not offering much help with the wire 
cleaning, even though I try to follow what's going on in that front 
through the list. In any case, I would also like to shout a big up to 
those that have been putting so much time an effort into keeping it 
clean and relevant.

Yes, sure, I have sometimes disagreed with some of the hiding. Others 
I've been surprised about people questioning hiddens when they were a 
clear cut 'must hid' to me. But because I was not offering real help in 
doing the day to day job of monitoring the wire, I found it a bit rich 
of myself to make too much noise in both directions. I've always 
thought that if someone is offering his or her own time, effort and 
knowledge into doing something, and I don't have the time or 
willingness to participate, then I shouldn't have much to say about it, 
unless I either get involved myself, or something very extreme happens 
that I disagree with.

For me, to complain and then not participate it is not on. That's why I 
tend to ignore complaints or accusations from people that I don't 
really see doing anything useful. Please don't get me wrong, I am not 
implying that anyone involved in this 'hiding' debate falls into that 
category! .. rather the contrary, what I am trying to do is to explain 
why I have not said much about all this lately, even though I have my 
views too.

Anyway, I am ranting too much already. Just a few comments:

On Monday, February 6, 2006, at 01:06  pm, zcat at ametrika.com wrote:

.../...

> But I feel that the current policy goes against the whole basis and 
> principles that the Indymedia network was founded on. I see it as The 
> spirit of Indymedia.

I may be missing something here, but I see this as a bit of an 
exaggeration. You may disagree with quite a bit of what has been going 
on in the wire lately, but to say that what people have been doing with 
it goes against the principles of indy, I think it is a bit too much.

I actually see the wire as being something much closer to zcat's view 
of it than maybe that of ftp, shiar or phunkee for example, in terms of 
what constitutes 'news' and what shape or form a 'piece of news' can 
take. I say maybe because I've never spoken to them about this, so I 
may be wrong, but I base this judgement on what I've been reading in 
the lists.

But even though, from what I understand, what they have been doing with 
the wire is  basically to implement the existing editorial guidelines. 
Maybe in a way that it is too strict for people like zcat, ionnek or 
myself (for example) True, but no one can accuse anyone of arbitrarily 
hiding things according his or her own views only. The Guidelines are 
there, not as rules (I agree with zcat 100% here) but because the very 
fact that they are only guidelines, they are prone to be interpreted 
quite subjectively, which in this case is the same as too say more or 
less strictly.

In any case, I still prefer to have a 'too strictly monitored' wire 
than a loose one where crap stays there because no one can be arsed to 
remove it. I think an IMC can only be relevant if the standards of the 
wire are as high as possible. This is why I am so happy with the 
introduction of the Promoted wire!.

One only has to take a look to the usual state London-IMC wire to see a 
picture of what I am talking about (although occasionally people puts a 
bit of work into it). That's why I am so grateful to people that takes 
the responsibility of doing the job. I've been there myself, 
maintaining pages basically on my own in the past, and I know what it 
is like to then have people shouting at you because you should or 
shouldn't have done this or that.

.../...

> Indymedia is all about fighting back against the system of capitalism 
> and the society that dominates all our lives and the way Indymedia 
> collectives do it is by providing an alternative media output with an 
> anti-capitalist stance. Hacking the system thats what counts - and 'by 
> any means necessary' (BAMN)

I agree quite a bit with this view. Not only hacking the system BAMN, 
but maybe more importantly, building up structures and processes that 
are real  and work right here and right now, and that they are in 
direct opposition to the way capitalism functions and the power 
structures it creates. This is what makes indy interesting to me, 
because even with its failures, I think that overall it still does 
exactly that.

> Also if you gotta use some of the enemy's methods to reach your goals 
> then so be it, using their tools and subverting those against them is 
> OK its another form of hacking. BAMN

Not too sure what you mean here. Are you somehow referring to the issue 
of incorporating corporate reposts to the wire?

If so, I think this is a double edged knife if you see what I mean. 
Reapropiating 'their tools' for 'our own gains', that's kool by me and 
I have no problem with it whatsoever. But what you call 'subverting 
those against them' is a bit more tricky. You may think that by doing 
xyz you are actually subverting, but in fact the real result may be 
that it ends up helping to uphold their values.

So, for example, for me, to leave up in the wire a straight repost from 
xyz paper just because it is from, lets say, Pilger, Shaby or Fisk, it 
is not 'subverting their tools' at all, quite the contrary. It is 
legitimating their 'worth' by pointing to them (put it quite crudely). 
It's a bit like saying 'look aren't the Guardian or the Independent so 
cool, they regularly publish Fisk or talk about climate change for 
example!'.

Well, I believe that if they do so, it is because it suits their 
(capitalist) interests. Because, at the same time, they'll say that the 
black bloc is a danger that is destroying what they call the 
'antiglobalist movement' (Gary Young or Mombiot often claim this in the 
pages of the Guardian for example), and they'll link comrades to this 
notion of the 'black bloc' when it suits them or the state tells them 
to do so. Or that, for example, they'll publish that since Mayday 2000 
there have been riots in central London. Remember, the Guardian 
specially has been running this line every year since Mayday 2000. The 
Wombles can testify this!.

But going back to that double edged knife, to me, to include links in a 
middle column feature to a Pilger, Shaby, or Fisk article that appears 
in a mainstream paper, or to have an 'other press' section in which we 
include the dissenting voices from the mainstream is ok. This is like 
saying 'look it is not only us in the fringes that think that this or 
that is wrong, but these 'big fish' think the same too'. To have all 
the mainstream's dissenting voices in one section within indymedia, 
created in our way and to our purposes, is subverting their tools to 
me. In a way is like throwing their shit back to their faces, when it 
suits us best if you see what i mean. BAMN.

Dunno, maybe it is just a very personal way of seeing this, and maybe 
it doesn't make much sense to anyone else. Or maybe that double edged 
knife is too abstract, and I don't really know how to explain what I 
mean, I don't know. Or even maybe zcat was not referring to this issue 
at all and I just banged it in! :-)

>  To take the guidelines too literally is like chopping of our nose's 
> to spite our face's eg its counterproductive.

Agree.

> To say that the editorial guidlines are rules and must be stuck to no 
> matter what, to me that is falling into the capitalist box, its taking 
> their model for society and living by it, taking their rules and 
> living by them.

Quite agree too.

> Articles in the newswire are all very different and each one has its 
> own merits and to hide somthing only because of the perceived law of 
> the guidlines is very wrong. Ariticles in the newswire should be 
> hidden because they do not merit staying there, not automaticly 
> because they breach a guidline.

I think I see what you mean, although this will depend very much on the 
merits of each case, and in which way an article breaches the 
guidelines. Not only this, but more importantly, it will ultimately 
depend on the subjectivity of whoever is doing the cleaning. And this 
is fair enough I think.

The only practical way to have a wire that embodies everyone's view of 
what it should be, is by having everyone participating in its 
maintenance all the time. Otherwise, the flavor of it will depend on 
who is doing the job. I think that this is quite inevitable, and as 
long as those doing it do it openly and transparently (as I believe it 
is the case right now) then my general take on it (unless the shit hits 
the fan) is to act up or shut up .. (ehem ... not that I am not talking 
right now :-)


> It is not really the hiding that concerns me it is but a symptom of an 
> illness, it is the way in which the guidlines are perceived and that 
> is what I think is a threat to the Spirit of Indymedia.

Ok, I see your point, and fair enough for you to bring it up.

> These are the symptoms I speak of -
> Art Humour and Culture.
> There have been instances of art, music, humour and cultural things 
> being hidden and I think this is wrong, much of this material is 
> outside of the mainstream, outside of the fine art industry, the music 
> industry or the big entertainments industry or is on the fringes of it 
> and is quite subversive in its way and is encouraging people to look 
> outside of the mainstream.

I agree with this 100%. Subversive attitudes can take many shapes and 
forms. I remember a posting that got hidden, and that pissed me off a 
while ago. Somebody posted free downloads offering a series of 
anti-war/anti-bush set of electro-quite-dubby-hip-hop tunes. I actually 
downloaded them before it got hidden :-) And I don't only think that 
the tunes are great, but I think that the fact that they had been 
produced in an independent DIY manner, and then offered for free for 
everyone to download (and on top they had a political message) it is as 
'revolutionary' or 'activisty' as, for example, opening and maintaining 
a social centre, blokading the G8, or volunteering in imc.

As zacat says, this way of producing and distributing cultural 
artefacts is directly opposed to the way the entertainment and cultural 
industries work within capitalism, and thus it is an anticapilalist 
stance.

To me these sort of posts must have a space in indymedia-uk. Let's open 
up doors and build bridges with people doing other stuff, and not close 
ourselves to a stricter idea of what is 'political'. I bet that whoever 
published those downloads, are now not very willing to publish again in 
indy-uk.

The same goes for art, literature, film, performance and whatever other 
artistic production.

> for instance Houston Indymedia say in their mission statement "We will 
> strive to develop the arts, culture, entertainment, education, forums 
> and conferences." IMO somthing along these lines should be added to 
> the Mission Statement if not that actual wording.

I wouldn't mind that actually.

>  Mainstream reposts
> 4 points about this one on articles that are directly relevent to our 
> objectives like the recent post 'Capitalism or a Habitable Planet' 
> (332855) but thats just one example.

Dunno about this one, and I reserve my right to be lazy to check it up 
right now :-)

> 1. If its been on indy its already violated the copyright law even if 
> its been hidden so there is little we can do.

Apparently this is true.

> 2. Reposting IS a political statement against copyright which in my 
> view is a very important thing. BAMN

As I said, I don't think this is so clear cut. It can be seen like this 
sometimes, but in others, it can just legitimate 'them'. It all depends 
on the context and on the way it is done imo.

> 3. Using previously published articles is in its way subversion its 
> taking them from the capitalist mainstream and using them for our own 
> means. BAMN

Well, see above.

> 4. Another argument that is relevant, I see IMC as a sort of archive 
> of the movements and if a piece is here it is archived for a very long 
> time (I'd like to say forever but..) when a piece is in a newspapers 
> archive it is only accessible for a limited period then it disappears 
> into the bowels of that site and only accessible if you pay for entry.

True, and thus I think it would be worth to have a dedicated 'Other 
Press' section for this, with a publish form that only allows to link 
to a good article published in the mainstream, preventing straight c&p 
jobs. A publish form that has got an 'abstract' box where the publisher 
can explain why he or she thinks it is relevant and worth a read. This 
is what I mean by "the context and the way it is done".

> (This may not be relevent as a proposal was made 1 year ago, 6 months 
> ago and somtime inbetween to create an 'other press' section but it 
> hasnt happened yet and so that is why its still on my agenda)

I see, but then if the 'Other Press' section is created, my view is 
that these sort of articles should then not appear in the main 
newswires. They should be placed in that dedicated section only. A 
section that we create in our own terms and for our own reasons. I 
think I argued this on an email a few months back, but I am again too 
lazy to search for it .. this mail is taking enough of my time already 
:-)

> Academic texts.
> Academic texts get hidden as non-news which I think is wrong as well. 
> Many will be background or history and info somehow related to our 
> struggles.

True, and they can be inspiring and offer good food for thought, which 
is always good if one has the time to dive into long theoretical texts.

> People are hiding things because they are non-news, there is plenty of 
> stuff that is non-news that is still relevent to the issues that we 
> say we give a platform to.

Yeah the non-news guideline is a tricky one. How do we actually define  
what constitutes new or not. It is again a quite subjective matter, 
that no guidelines can resolve. For example I've just finished a book 
about internal borders in Israel. Borders based on race, class and 
cultural background (whether one may be an european Jew, or and arab 
Jew for example). It is quite theoretical in the sense that parts of 
the book are quite conceptual. But on the other hand it has examples of 
events, situations, and struggles that have been going on in there. 
Because I didn't know much about this issue, and because I am quite new 
to it, I found these examples as 'pieces of news' to me. They didn't 
only tell me that x day, y happened in a z place, but they also helped 
me to understand better the issue, whilst informed me about specific 
struggles of people against Zionism in Israel. That's has to be 'news', 
init?

What I mean is that book wasn't a report, or an account of events. But 
rather a text which contained analysis, personal views, historical 
facts and specific examples. All together conformed a thorough and very 
informative piece of news.

> Indymedia is like life there are no hard and fast rules,

True, but maybe we should think of a rule preventing people making such 
outrageously long mails as this one of mine! :-)

Anyhow, cheers if you've make it that far.

maqui