community-based, non-corporate, participatory media
Where Is the Comment From "Recruiter" to Story Titled "Much Ado About Nothi
by BraveNewWorldOrderFighter
Monday, Sep. 15, 2003 at 8:54 PM
for Pittsburgh Indymedia because I'm from Pittsburgh
Where is the comment by "Recruiter" in reply to my post titled "Much Ado About Nothing, Nothing At All"?
Response from one of the editors
by Mary Hart
Tuesday, Sep. 16, 2003 at 4:05 AM
mh5r@andrew.cmu.edu
I take responsibility for hiding the comment on the grounds that it advocated acts of violence (in this case, killing).
From time to time I have hidden comments on this ground or on the ground of racism, sexism, or homophobia. This is in keeping with this IMC's posted policies. Admittedly, this brings up free speech issues.
In the case of this comment and a previously posted comment advocating killing, I do not speak for the entire editorial collective. The issue of whether or not to hide comments which appear to advocate the killing of a group of people is under discussion and a consensus has not yet been reached.
The discussion (with the two hidden comments quoted) can be found in the archives of the editorial listserv (click on "participate").
Mary
by a pgh.imc reader
Tuesday, Sep. 16, 2003 at 8:30 AM
The editing on this site is getting out of hand. We are all adults here and can handle those who write in a rougher tone than others. I strongly recommend that you, John, David, Quinten, Andy, Meir, and others who are the main core get together and discuss this in a more complete manner. I recommend discontinuing the editing altogether for a month and let's just see what happens.
whaa?
by yogi bear
Tuesday, Sep. 16, 2003 at 1:26 PM
Yogi bear asks the editorial to remember that in protecting others from nasty comments, you become fascist yourself.
But yogi bear loves IMC and he says try to be a little more open. Yogi won't go killing people if someone suggests it. But Yogi Bear realizes that IMC may look like it promotes killing by leaving that comment up. Yogi Bear then thinks to himself that other people need to realize that an independent media site will have all walks of life, and that it promotes nothing that anyone says. Maybe IMC should have that kind of statement on the site, and be more lenient of postings?
Yogi Bear has given wise counsel. Be happy little people of yogi town.
thanks for your response, imc.reader. A few things:
by Mary Hart
Tuesday, Sep. 16, 2003 at 1:28 PM
mh5r@andrew.cmu.edu
Your suggestion will be read by editorial folks (if it hasn't already). Making a change in editorial policy, albeit a temporary one, would come about through a consensus process of the editorial folks (feel free to subscribe to the editorial listserv or view the archives if you're curious about editorial discussions, or post suggestions to the editorial listserv.)
The readership here is pretty diverse, so while you'd like us not to touch anything for awhile, I was criticized awhile back by a reader for engaging in a discussion of whether to censor something violence-related (as opposed to censoring it immediately, so, for sure, there is not universal agreement on how IMC should handle things.
A number of posters have expressed a concern that IMC censors views that are not in politically in agreement with theirs (i.e., if the views are not "leftist", they are censored). I can say to the best of my knowledge, this is *not* done, unless you interpret political views very broadly to include dissenting views regarding the areas of racism, sexism, homophobia, and violence, and you may well feel that these are political views and it should be okay to post racist remarks or advocate killing police officers (the gist of the most recently hidden post).
From a personal standpoint, I've had to make a decision here between absolute free speech and my concerns about violence and treating all people with respect, and I've come to discover that it's not in me to advocate for peoples' rights to suggest killing other people, or to degrade other people because of race, gender, etc. Given the published policies of the IMC, I think I can defend that...but in fact, if I am carrying out a personal agenda here rather than doing IMC stuff, there is a mechanism for other editorial folks to deal with me, and I hope they will.
In fact, my interpetation of the IMC policies is not that "promotion of free speech, any and all" is the primary goal of the IMCs, but the goal (as I read it) coverage of news that would not otherwise be covered, and that seems like a pretty important goal.
BTW, there is a sense in which the IMC goals are not set in stone, but are still emerging. David provided this link:
http://www.cjr.org/issues/2003/5/anarchy-beckerman.asp
to an article in the Columbia Journalism Review which describes pretty well how the IMCs are dynamic (in the sense of fluid or changing) entities. This characteristic of IMCs (along with the coverage of very local events which were not well covered elsewhere) are what drew me to become involved.
A few odds and ends: Sometimes things may appear to be "censored", when,
1. something wasn't posted because it was simply a copy of something that appeared elsewhere. If the policy seems unreasonable after you find out the specifics, you can become involved in changing the policy- we've had lots of discussion of those kinds of policies.
2. something wasn't posted because a 20,000 word document was submitted- as a single paragraph. When something unreadable or barely readable is submitted, it is usually removed. If the poster has included an email address, I try to email the person & let them kniow what the problem was; thus someone can resubmit.
3. something doesn't appear for the oddball technical reason. For instance, comments to articles which are hidden do not appear. This is the default, not something that has been done to the specific comment. Other things crop up from time to time, sometimes surprising me.
One thing which I think we editors have failed to take sufficent note of is the fact that there is great diversity in levels of comfort with the technology here. Some people will probably say, what technology? whereas others will be unsure how to subscribe to the editorial list or find the archives. So, here are a few odds & ends:
Want to *read* the editorial discussions?
Click on "particicipate" on the left hand side.
Click on "lists".
Click on "IMC-pgh-editorial"(or other list).
Click on "IMC-pgh-editorial-Archives".
Click on "Date" for the most recent month.
You'll see a list of all the things that were posted that month, and can click on them individually. (that is a bit ugly.)
Want to *post* to the editorial list?
Send email to:
imc-pgh-editorial@lists.indypgh.org
(Your email will appear, but *not* immediately).
Want to *subscribe* to the editorial list?
Go to
http://indypgh.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/imc-pgh-editorial
and provide your email.
There is also an announcements list- to subscribe, go to
http://indypgh.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/imc-pgh-announce
Finally, we (the editors- there is consensus on this one) would love to see more people involved, not in just commenting on what's on Indymedia, but in providing local and global articles and front-page features (or pictures, or whatever). It's my feeling that the "click on publish" is not experienced as user-friendly by everyone, so I'd like to invite people to send stories etc that they would like to publish to the new Reporting list. Email them to:
imc-pgh-reporting@lists.indypgh.org
They can be text, Word documents, html, whatever you are comfortable working in (but use paragraphs for longer stuff, please), and we will get your stuff up w/o you having to deal with the interface.
Also, people are welcome to become involved with the editorial collective- email the editorial listserv or one of the editors if you are interested.
Oh GREAT, another pissed-off-at-the-world recruit for the IMC editorial board
by No Nam For Fear of Reprisal or Slander
Wednesday, Sep. 17, 2003 at 9:49 AM
CORRESPONDENCE FOR A NEW ADDITION TO THE EDITORIAL COLLECTIVE --
___________________________________
.
Just a suggestion from the peanut gallery you call your readers ..... We could probably do without anymore ax-grinding "editors".
content removed- explanation
by Mary Hart
Wednesday, Sep. 17, 2003 at 11:07 AM
mh5r@andrew.cmu.edu
As a courtesy, the editorial correspondence is left public in the archives. Step by step instructions for accessing the archives, for those who need them, were provided in a previous post.
Among the things which are against the policies of this IMC, however, are posting someone else's writings without their permission. I have removed the material that you copied and posted w/o the permission of the person originally sending the email. I have left whatever of your post was original.
We encourage participation in this IMC in a variety of ways, including those who are interested in becoming a part of the editorial group. I personally try to encourage people who express an interest in participating, and try to post something to that effect from time to time.
If you would be interested in contributing your ostensibly less-biased viewpoint and becoming a part of the editorial process, we would be happy to hear from you.
Again, bad editor-ing..
by N.N.F.F.O.R.O.S.
Wednesday, Sep. 17, 2003 at 11:32 AM
Mary,
The prospective editor, [NAME OMITTED], has given his/her permission for his/her posting to be used by posting it on a publicly available discussion. Or are you suggesting that everytime someone here copies the text of another person's post into their own for the purpose of quoting the original post, that the "editors" are now going to start deleting the quoted text unless there is an express permission from the original poster for that quote?
I think that the use of the original material would all qualify as fair use or as necessary to the reporting. Your "editorial" oversight has done nothing but make my original post inconvenient for the reader. In that sense you have censored my posting. Sure someone could go through the effort to find the original posting in the archive (you did not even provide a link), but that is not only inconvenient, but it demonstrates your own bias in keeping "certain" information away from the eyes of the readers here. The only conceivable reason for your doing this is to affect the context and meaning of my original post (and to censor the posting).
You should have noted that in my posting I took the time to redact the name and other identifying information about the prospective editor. I did more to protect that person than you have by merely referring people to the original correspondence. I tried to limit the information provided to that which was relevant to my statements and exclude any of the personal discussion which was not relevant.
This is another example of the heavy-handed and fluid editorial practices that are so irritating around here. This is the sort of thing that draws out criticism against IMC and its editors. Your statement as to why you removed the quoted material is entirely inconsistent with editorial practices in other discussions. Anyone who posts to a public discussion board has relinquished their expectation of privacy and authorship. Or would you have us all posting with copyright notices? Other postings are quoted regularly in the course of the discussions. This information was relevant to the particular discussion.
Whatever bias you may feel I have should be irrelevant in your application of editorial policy. In fact, my particular "bias" on the matter may have actually been germane to the discussion. It is not the place of the editorial board to "protect" anyone from any percieved bias in any writings here (for that WOULD BE censorship).
Mary
by a pgh.imc reader
Wednesday, Sep. 17, 2003 at 11:51 AM
Editing people who are saying they want to committ murder is one thing. Editing posts which might be seen as sexist, racist or homophobic are entirely different manners.
I must concur with the above poster. (S)he did none of those things but was edited, in fact I would go as far as to say cencored. Mary, you personally are becoming rather overbearing and dictitorial. It is for those reasons that I have shunned the corporate media and have turned to alternative sources. Now I come here and am treated with a great deal of disrespect, as though I needed someone to baby-sit for me.
We are adults. Please show the courtesy of treating us in such a manner. If this continues, I will have no choice but to leave and to encourage my comrades to do the same. I will have no part of your vanguard editing. It is an embarrasment to those of us active in the struggle.
What did I type?
by Recruiter
Wednesday, Sep. 17, 2003 at 12:25 PM
I didn't think whatever I posted was all that bad, although my old brain doesn't remeber what it was. Something along the lines of cop-killing be a useful skill for the US troops to bring home or something to that effect.I'm certain I've gotten away with posting worse.
Talk about Bias
by N.N.F.F.O.R.O.S.
Wednesday, Sep. 17, 2003 at 12:33 PM
Do you think that all of our comments about editorial practices is nothing more than "bitch" and "noise". Please, it is exactly that arrogance adn elitism that is causing the problem. Mary, you posting to the Editorial Collective about your censorship is quite telling -
"# 8913- someone perusing the archives copied the content of emails of the
poster who asked to join the editorial collective, and posted it as a
comment, along with a bitch about editors. I'm assuming (feel free to say
something if you think I've overstepped) that this is not okay, since it's
posting someone else's writing w/o their permission (yeah, it was
originally posted to the listserv, but not posted as a comment). I
included an explanation of the policy as a comment.
Mary"
Sorry if I did not get your permission to quote you here, but I think that this is important to the discussion of editorial practices and editorial biases. It is not just a "bitch" but it is all relevant comment which we all wish the Elites on the Editorial Collective would for once acknowledge rather than condescendingly dismiss with such imperiousness. And your rather disingenuous offers for participation on the editorial collective by those that are even modestly critical of the Imperial Panel of Editors is not moral cover. If our criticisms are treated this way publicly why should we expect that we would engender any greater respect in person and at a meeitng of the Collective. The very requirement of "consensus" on all decisions would quickly have anyone expressing alternative or dissent alienated from effective participation. The fact that editorial decisions are made only by consensus demonstrates the extremely tight standard deviation of editorial philosophies tolerated by the editorial collective.
You ask for input, but when that input does not support the exisitng editorial position, then it is nothing more than a "bitch". Just more noise and distraction from the Philistines, for how could any one worth listening to find disagreement with the (capital "C") "Collective".
editing
by Mary Hart
Wednesday, Sep. 17, 2003 at 12:36 PM
"The prospective editor, [NAME OMITTED], has given his/her permission for his/her posting to be used by posting it on a publicly available discussion. Or are you suggesting that everytime someone here copies the text of another person's post into their own for the purpose of quoting the original post, that the "editors" are now going to start deleting the quoted text unless there is an express permission from the original poster for that quote? "
If the poster had posted it as a comment, it would be reasonable to assume that people might copy it and repost it.
It was, however, sent as email to members of the editorial listserv. The poster had indicated in correspondence that she was unfamiliar with the archives and how they worked, and did not know how to access them. Presumably, she was not aware of the fact that what she posted was publicly accessible by others, since she had no experience with accessing the archives. The fact that she posted her phone number in her listserv correspondence suggests that she was not aware of the fact that it was, in fact, available to those could find it.
Bad Editing
by N.N.F.F.R.O.S.
Wednesday, Sep. 17, 2003 at 12:46 PM
But Mary, it is still posted on a PUBLICLY AAILABLE BOARD. Your justifications for your actions are very malleable. Why don't you point out that wen I quoted the person, I removed ALL of the personal information and personal discussion in the email.
Do We Need More Evidence
by N.N.F.F.O.R.O.S. - 2
Wednesday, Sep. 17, 2003 at 1:06 PM
THE EDITORIAL COLLECTIVE DISCUSSION OF CRITICISM ..... It is nothing but flaming and should be ignored.
___________
"while i don't think that this is at all abusing
editorial power, i think we should be careful
not to get baited into these flamewars by
persons who don't care about the actual policies,
but just want to push the issue to waste our
time and be disruptive. a lot of the the "concern"
about editorial policies is, in my opinion, faux
concern posted by folks who want to continue being
disruptive and obnoxious.
we should try to figure out ways that the editorial
collective can stay pro-active -- ie, promoting the
truly extraordinary and unique content on our site
via features and other methods, rather than being
dragged into the endless mess of sorting through
flamewars. how do comments fit into this? should
comments be moderated, or open publishing? how
can we change how things are structured to favor
productive communication instead of struggling to
keep flamewars under control?
again, now is the time to request changes to the website
format. speak up :)
-matt"
____________
Of corse, the "Editors" would not want to be drawn ito a "flamewar" or cosider that the criticism is deserved in any way. The "Editors" answer sems to be more oversight of this "open" media. and any critics must be part of a grand cospiracy of "faux" personlities without any "real" concern for the preservation of open media. Of course, that is it. All oft he detractors are really not there at all. WOW !!! The "Editors" have made a nice little place on the web for themselves and people like them (i.e. people who unconditionally agree with the "Editors" and who will not voice any critical thought).
evidence and credibility
by matt
Thursday, Sep. 18, 2003 at 8:43 AM
i think you forgot to add, "FREE EWAN KENKESMEARSE!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Free at last !!!
by Ewan Kenkesmearse
Thursday, Sep. 18, 2003 at 8:55 AM
Free at last, free at last. Thank God I am free at last !!! I have not posted anything here for quite a while because, as you all know from my previous emails, the editors had locked me out for no good reason. You can read all about that on the other strings. But I have been reading the site and I saw this whole discussion about editorial abuses. Although I would have to agree that the editors can be very narrow-minded and have an extremely low tolerance for any criticism, I must say that it seems that they have listened to my complaints and have lifted the cookie exile that they had arbitrarily placed me under. THANK YOU EDITORS. That was quite a magnanimous gesture. I only wish you would have publicized your decision more widely so that I could have thanked you and begun participating again.
For what it is worth, I would like to see the editors be less �dictatorial� (as someone described it). Editors, just because someone is critical of your practices does not mean that they and their opinions should be immediately disregarded. If you start doing that then you are worse than the fascist John Ashcroft and his cohorts. I think that (most) of the people who have posted here are making good and valid suggestions. Quit referring to it as a �flamewar� and try respecting your readers with more open discussion. Quit telling yourselves that there must only be one person out there posting �spam� (which the editors consider to be anything that is critical of them). I think that IMC has some history of censoring screening and cleansing postings to fit IMC�s editorial objectives. Listen to the input that you are now getting. Some of the input seems to be coming from people interested in contributing here, but you alienate them when you take the position that they are all just worthless �trolls� or �faux� posters.
Thanks again for lifting my unjust sentence of silence. Now maybe you can remove yourselves from a self-imposed exile of deafness.
Fair and Balanced, Unbias and Honest, The Editors Speak Out About Their Policies
by No Name For Fear of Reprisal or Slander
Thursday, Sep. 18, 2003 at 5:13 PM
I guess anyone who is critical of the editors is right to be worried about reprisal. So you decide that you made a mistake when you kicked Ewan K. out of here for doing nothing, then you denied that you did anything to him, but now you are admitting that you did something and you should do it again ..to poor little ole me of all people. Pretty professional and respectful editorial practices ... if you are running a fascist regime.
QUOTE FROM Matt (who also posted above).
"also, please remember that N.N.F.F.R.O.S. is the same
person we've been dealing with for MONTHS. the extent of
this person's "harassment" is posting "anonymous" commants to
a minor website. while harassment is a serious issue,
please do not flatter this schmuck by suggesting that
he actually poses a threat to anyone here. all he wants
to do is start TIME WASTING CONVERSATIONS LIKE THIS
so that we are distracted from doing real stuff.
it really frustrates me that people are baited into it
EVERY TIME. this guy is IRRELEVANT. yes, that's right,
irrelevant, that's what i think. please repost this far
and wide.
as far as i'm concerned, the only thing about this
idiot that bothers me is that I KEEP HAVING TO READ
ABOUT HIM ON THIS LIST! unfortunately he knows that
if his smalltime flamebaits aren't good enough to pull
people in, he can start spamming the newswire/calendar
in order to get something hidden, then cry censorship again.
i was not the person who made this suggestion the
first time several months ago, but i would renew
the motion that this fool be cut off from the website
for good. i also hope that this email ends up getting
reposted on the website, so that everyone can see
what an AUTHORITARIAN i am.
this shit needs to come to an end. i am willing to
do the tech work to make it stop, but i want to give
people a chance to voice their defense of why this
guy still needs to be able to post comments and fake
news to the site. what i don't want to hear is, after
we get rid of him, someone repeating a false claim that
this guy makes from his friend's computer somewhere, like
"hey you blocked 10000 users from your website" which
is clearly not true.
-matt"
____________
Matt - It isn't flamebait. It is a real issue. I am not the only one posting about this, no matter how much you want to believe that there could only be one "irrelevant" "schmuck" in the world who could possible think that the editorial practices around here are far less than respectful, honest, professional and consistent. As for posting anonymously ... everyone here does it, you allow it, and there is no reason that only the critics should be required to post other than anonymously. Wouldn't that be kind of like requiring the opposition party to vote only with open ballots? Gosh, that would fit nicely with your fascist editorial practices, now wouldn't it?
FASCIST EDITORIALIZING
by Prodigal Yunzer
Thursday, Sep. 18, 2003 at 6:07 PM
What a surprise that the same people who draw a bright undotted line from Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam Hussein's hand in 1988 straight to some conclusion that the US supported Iraq with weapons technology would find any discretion used by an editor to be "fascism". Fascism is when the government decides what the investors are permitted to do- for instance, when Kommisar Roddy wants a 400 room hotel in opposition to Gauleiter Murphy's 500 room hotel demand. Some college weenie doesn't spend hours reading this stuff and making sure the server is working unless they get to exercise some arbitrary snotty power by censoring content. If they are bright, they can hide behind a bunch of standards, and if they aren't they can confess to marginalizing the poster in their mind. That doesn't make them a fascist, dumbo, that makes them human.
Your anarchist poet community does not cotton to revolutionaries. Censoring violent impulses is only good sense considering the tepid reaction shown when intimidation tactics by the police can destroy your lawful demonstration at no cost to them. How difficult would it be to embarass the police since their tactics are fairly obvious? Evidently it is beyond your imagination to figure out how to do this without jeapardizing your little post-demo huddle in Lawrenceville where you can all play grab ass until the next fun outing. The censorship is a good thing, it protects you from yourselves getting too involved with this anarchy thing.
FASCIST EDITORIALIZING
by Prodigal Yunzer
Thursday, Sep. 18, 2003 at 6:08 PM
What a surprise that the same people who draw a bright undotted line from Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam Hussein's hand in 1988 straight to some conclusion that the US supported Iraq with weapons technology would find any discretion used by an editor to be "fascism". Fascism is when the government decides what the investors are permitted to do- for instance, when Kommisar Roddy wants a 400 room hotel in opposition to Gauleiter Murphy's 500 room hotel demand. Some college weenie doesn't spend hours reading this stuff and making sure the server is working unless they get to exercise some arbitrary snotty power by censoring content. If they are bright, they can hide behind a bunch of standards, and if they aren't they can confess to marginalizing the poster in their mind. That doesn't make them a fascist, dumbo, that makes them human.
Your anarchist poet community does not cotton to revolutionaries. Censoring violent impulses is only good sense considering the tepid reaction shown when intimidation tactics by the police can destroy your lawful demonstration at no cost to them. How difficult would it be to embarass the police since their tactics are fairly obvious? Evidently it is beyond your imagination to figure out how to do this without jeapardizing your little post-demo huddle in Lawrenceville where you can all play grab ass until the next fun outing. The censorship is a good thing, it protects you from yourselves getting too involved with this anarchy thing.
Technical expulsion
by I better not use my name either
Thursday, Sep. 18, 2003 at 7:18 PM
Yo, matt, what is this idea that you are going to do the technical work to exclude a particular person from the discussions? I thought the editors said you didn't identify users? I thought you also said that you didn't do this stuff when that Ewan dude was crying about getting some cookie up his ass? What are you saying? When are you going to start idenitfying people for your technical banishment? This is getting pretty screwed up around here.
?
by Ewan Kenkesmearse
Friday, Sep. 19, 2003 at 11:59 AM
Matt,
First of all, you are referring to the wrong person when you say you are going to exclude �this guy� when referring to N.N.F.F.O.R.O.S. I was excluded before by your tech work. This was excruciatingly well documented on my other posts. And yes Matt, your tech work kept every PC in my company from accessing the IMC pages. For whatever reasons you got our entire internal ISP. So your tech work still needs some work. It also seems that you got Mr. Officer 2beers with your cookie. But he was able to get around it. I wasn�t. So I posted my complaints from another computer. And yes, the editors completely ignored me. In fact, the editors took to insulting me. That was what got me most worked up. It seems that other readers are worked up too. I don�t agree with 2beers and his tactics here. I even tried to post something to get him to quit referring to me. I think he was glad to be hassling me as well as IMC. And that was just insult to injury. It ultimately became too much trouble to post from another PC so I stopped posting all together. It wasn�t until I decided to try to post that I realized that you had undone the previous cookie thing. Thanks for that.
But now you may want to consider listening to some of the (valid) criticism and stop giving people like 2beers and N.N.F.F.O.R.O.S more reason to stir things up. Before you start grouping every critic into the persona of 2beers or NNFFOROS you might remember that during the Rich Mackin debate there were several people posting under the No Name For Fear of _____.
Maybe...
by Recruiter
Friday, Sep. 19, 2003 at 12:13 PM
I know that some sites post "nuisance IP's" (i.e. freerepublic, KOBEhq, etc.) which can be copied and pasted to block the offending party from accessing a particular site, all without logging the original IP.
bullcrap
by yogi bear
Friday, Sep. 19, 2003 at 4:58 PM
yogi bear thinks you are a bunch of bullshitters. what did you post that won't come up on the website???????
I asked you before Ewen/Matt/whoever to post the articles or at least post a link to your supposed articles/posts that were "blocked."
liars
Hey Boo Boo
by i
Friday, Sep. 19, 2003 at 5:11 PM
Yogi is just a cartoon character faux personality. In that case, according to IMC he is irrelevant.
Yogi, the Ranger can't keep doing your homework for you. You just need to pay attention better. Keep your eye on the ball you big lovable bear. Go back and read the volumes of posts on the subject. But PLEASE, whatever you do, do not get Ewan going again. Otherwise we are going to suck up enough bandwidth to power an aircraft carrier with all of his tedious detailed posts on the injustice done to him.
![[masthead]](/images/masthead_140.png)