[New-imc] IMC Kamloops at an impasse

[Deja]

Hello,

This is an interesting suggestion and I appreciate it. Unfortunatly it 
demonstrates the lack of understanding that we are facing here. This 
proposal would actually lead to more deletions by pulling some materiel 
out of the 'as a last resort and with the consensus of the entire 
collective' category and put them into a 'delete on sight without 
accountability' category. This is the exact kind of thing that we are 
trying to avoid!

I feel that there is a lack of trust towards the Kamloops collective and 
that this is totally targeted at us for no good reason. I hate to bring 
up Binghamton again, but they just strolled through without anyone 
paying much attention at all. Is hiding copyrighted materiel and 
anything deemed 'not newsworthy' any better than deleting it? Those 
categories are so broad that almost any post could be hidden on the whim 
of the editorial collective! IMHO, this is far outside of the definition 
of open publishing. Not one concern was raised except, ironically, by me.

I appreciate claras response as well. I think that everything  that she 
suggests is exactly what we would do. Those are all options that we 
would have to have used before we got to the 'last resort'. The last 
resort means that we are all sitting at a meeting and looking at the 
situation and can not think of *any other option* than to delete the 
post. That is what 'last resort' means. This is an accountability 
clause, not a 'we want to delete this kind of stuff' clause.

We will be meeting tonight and discussing these issues.

Exasperated by this process,

Deja


ana wrote:

> Hi Deja and thanks for the extensive list of other IMCs that also 
> 'delete' postings...
>
> there were mixing of wordings in that list. We need to be clear, i 
> think i encountered 3 types of 'deletion':
>
> 1. hide from front page - posting remains available to all viewers 
> either from an 'all posts', or a 'deleted' page, or, from a 'second 
> front page' as is the case of Germany IMC i believe (i think scotland 
> wanted to use this one as well? can check with them if required...) - 
> of course, searchable by google, and the url does not go dead. it can 
> be un-hidden i.e. available on front page again.
>
> 2. hide from viewers site - posting is not available to all viewers, 
> it is only available to admins who have a password. url goes dead, may 
> not be searchable by google. but remains on the server and can be 
> un-hidden.
>
> 3. erased, completely destroyed from server. posting not availale to 
> viewers or to administrator. url goes dead, not searchable by google, 
> and does not remain on the server, it can not be unhidden.
>
> 4... there is another one which is editing 'text' or 'pics' from a 
> posting. this is completely unreversible, as it edits stuff from the 
> server, it could be seen as a variation of type 3 as the old text is 
> erased, removed from the server. Should only be used in case of death 
> threats and similar, the same as 3.
>
> 'Normal hidings' go on category 1. The issue on this case is the 
> confussion with categories 2 and 3. (and 4). In the UK we only use 3 
> and 4 for pornography. We do not use 2. We use 1 widely - we are often 
> nazi-spammed, but hidings are _always_ reported to the uk-features list.
>
> From the few i read on your list, i believe 3 and 4 are only used in 
> very extreme cases. Misinformation about a prospect action is not an 
> extreme case, i don't think. But that is only my opinion only.
>
> Now, as far as your application is concerned, I believe that if you 
> keep options 3 and 4 only for pornography, and an option 2 for the 
> misinformation type, the network would not have a problem with your imc.
>
> I think Deja is doing an amazing job here that shows how strongly 
> feels both about his local policy and his will for his group to become 
> an imc. We should acknowledge this :-).
>
> As for the feelings that this is causing to Clara, I know it is hard 
> to acknowledge one's own 'pushishness', or [bad] attitude with a 
> sponsor. But I am feeling it myself with the imc that i am sponsoring 
> and I do not like it. It is great that people become articulate once 
> they come to know a bit about how things work, but responding in a 
> nice attitude to some one who is helping you asking nothing in return 
> would help; responding in a pushy manner does not help.
>
> ana
> Deja wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> Its seems that IMC Kamloops is at an impassse. Our sponsor has raised 
>> concerns about two aspects of our editorial policy, namely that we 
>> have a provision in our editorial policy that allows for the deletion 
>> of  the following kinds of posts, as a last resort, and with the 
>> consensed approval of the whole collective:
>>
>> * Pornography and sexist/abuse posts
>> * Misinformation intended to disrupt activist actions and discussions
>> (i.e. false information regarding an event, with the intent to disrupt
>> the event)
>>
>> No one in our collective seems willing to remove these items from the 
>> 'Banned Items' category. Our reasoning is that there are enough 
>> checks and balances in place to prevent abuse of this policy and that 
>> removing them would deny us the *option* to permanently delete a post 
>> that says "All bitches must die..." or posts that are factually 
>> untruthful with the *intent* of disrupting protest actions 
>> (destabilization posts). I can understand why the Misinformation 
>> section is controversial, but the Mission Statement of the network is 
>> very clear, the very first line of all Indymedia documentation states:
>> <>
>> "The Independent Media Center is a global network of collectively run 
>> media outlets for the creation of radical, *accurate*, and passionate 
>> tellings of *truth*." (emphasis mine)
>>
>> No where does it say anything about defending the right to lie and 
>> disrupt protest actions. Reading the rest of the mission statement it 
>> seems clear that the intent of this organization is to assist the 
>> struggle for social justice, not impede it. The mission statement is 
>> the base document on which all other must derive, so any open 
>> publishing policy must take its lead from the mission statement. 
>> Activist publishing does just that.
>>
>> On that basis we believe that we have the right to move forward with 
>> our application as is and put it forward to the network for the 
>> opinions of all to come out. We could just as easily just remove the 
>> offending articles for the purposes of having a quick and easy 
>> approval, then put them in later (as so many other collectives have 
>> done), but is aquiesence the sign of a healthy community?
>>
>> Personally, I believe strongly that the editorial policy that we have 
>> put forward is the best editorial policy in the network. One that 
>> will build a strong and functional IMC collective. I think that it 
>> deserves review and debate, and not just from one 'gatekeeper' at the 
>> new-imc, but from the network as a whole.
>>
>> In solidarity,
>>
>> Deja
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> New-imc mailing list. Lista de correo New-imc
>> New-imc at lists.indymedia.org
>> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/new-imc
>>  
>>
>