from  http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2005/06/1716036_comment.php



This site is not affiliated with the SF Bay Area IMC.
by just clarifying Friday, Jun. 24, 2005 at 10:18 AM

Why does the home page title tag indicate that it is?

Inquiring minds want to know.

add your comments

inquiring minds?
by what is the purpose? Friday, Jun. 24, 2005 at 10:46 AM

is this supposed to sound like an important expose or something? is having an inquring mind some sort of excuse for asking dumb questions? who is this poster who is concerned about "affiliations" they obviously know nothing about? the two IMC's in the san francisco bay area are more affiliated than not. but now the question becomes who seeks to continue this type of divisiveness? for what purpose?

add your comments

Lesson on title tags and IMCs
by just clarifying Friday, Jun. 24, 2005 at 10:52 AM

This is what the coding looks like:

San Francisco Indymedia : Independent Media Center for SF Bay Area

But, if you go to any IMC in the world and check the list of links to US IMCs, you will find:

san francisco [this website]
 http://sf.indymedia.org/
 http://sfimc.net/

san francisco bay area [another local IMC]
 http://sfbay.indymedia.org/
 http://www.indybay.org/

What is going on here? Inquiring minds want to know.

add your comments

history of the imcs
by interrelated, not delineated Friday, Jun. 24, 2005 at 12:35 PM

These two seeds grew from the same soil, as I see it. I question proprietary ownership of terms like "San Francisco" and "Bay Area." One is a broader term in the public domain defining a larger geographical and ideological area; the other a more specific metropolitan name, but also ideological.

Is it the url names that bug you?

Who can purport to own an imc anyway?

add your comments

This is the work of sectarian bureaucrats.
by --- Friday, Jun. 24, 2005 at 5:33 PM

Yes, this is San Francisco IMC (the "official" name). Yes, it exists in the SF Bay Area and those terms shouldnt be "owned" by anyone.

Honestly, anyone who is still uptight about bullshit that happened 2 years ago should find a new hobby besides internet drama.

add your comments

well
by sf.indymedia is run by nazis Friday, Jun. 24, 2005 at 6:16 PM

sf.indymedia is run by nazis who pretend to be anti-racists

add your comments

Search engine optimization.
by Affiliations. Dissolutions. Friday, Jun. 24, 2005 at 9:19 PM

I feel tension in the community, here in the Bay Area, here in San Francisco. But I hate to see these two indymedia affiliates go through this kind of bickering crap right now, again, when the stakes are so high. Discord os not likely to bring about a positive or uplifting solution. Why not forgive and move on, even work together? Why is defining whose affiliation is whose so urgent on this topic, again, now>

I disavow this type of insane degree of possessiveness.

I have friends who work on both SF IMC and Indybay, who don't need to draw a line between in the sand. It's not like a game of football where there are two teams in competition.

If Indybay wants to publish a policy on its site about proprietary articles, that would be one clear signpost of something.

Even so, I don't know if Indybay gets to own the term "Bay Area." I don't know if Indybay owns such topics as environmentalism or animal rights. Not sure about the need to try to censor topics on another site.

But what stands out is the timing: I'm not sure why this caca is coming up now.

add your comments

My guess...
by xxx Saturday, Jun. 25, 2005 at 1:08 AM

Its because if Indybay doesn't have a fictitious external "enemy" to fight, they will end up fighting with each other. The only unity they have is to oppose the bogeyman.

add your comments

been there done that
by yyy Saturday, Jun. 25, 2005 at 1:31 AM

seen it all before in the cat fights that lead to the split of sf and indy bay. how this lame cyber rag stays on line is beyound me.

add your comments

re: --- et al
by just clarifying Saturday, Jun. 25, 2005 at 1:35 AM

"the work of sectarian bureaucrats"

A putdown does not negate this valid discussion of nomenclature, monickers, and respecting IMC designations.

"Yes, this is San Francisco IMC (the "official" name). Yes, it exists in the SF Bay Area and those terms shouldnt be "owned" by anyone."

This IMC also exists in Northern California and California, and no one owns the word California either, but this IMC cannot independently decide that it will hereforth refer to itself in any manner it pleases as California IMC. Well, it could, but it would be extremely lame. Interesting that the word "official" is placed in quotes as if an IMC's name is just some arbitrary designation. It's not. Nor is it a matter of who "owns" certain words. It's a matter of what these two groups each agreed to be identified by when they decided they could no longer work together in the not so distant past (it's all publicly available on the internet if you care to trudge back through time on this). It's a matter of this IMC not respecting agreements made within the IMC network.

IMCs are identified by their names, according to very specific protocols. This IMC here is not respecting that schema. Why is it that every other IMC on the planet very specifically refers to San Francisco IMC and San Francisco Bay Area IMC, literally every single other IMC on the planet, except this one?

"Why not forgive and move on, even work together?"

Good question. Seems like that IS the best solution. It would be ideal. It would be the most constructive for all of the independent media centers' role in the Global Justice Movement. But apparently this site chooses to disrespect past agreements and "official" worldwide IMC designations to suit its own interests. In another refusal to accept the past and move on, this site commonly allows links to hidden posts on the other local IMC, meaning that this site openly and willfully undermines the editorial policies of the other IMC. In fact, one of this site's editors posts most if not all of these links to hidden comments on the other site. Different IMCs are free to determine their own editorial policies and even disagree about them, but to do so on a regular basis quite publicly is not constructive to IMCs as a whole, and it demeans this one. Additionally, while the other local IMC features a prominent link to this site on the very top of its home page (in addition to the standard IMC left-nav links to all IMCs worldwide), this site here feels no such compunction to highlight another nearby sister website. It will allow near constant links to the other site which undermine its editorial policies.

"I disavow this type of insane degree of possessiveness."

Possessiveness of disrespect of IMC process? Possessiveness or encroachment? California IMC, anyone?

"I have friends who work on both SF IMC and Indybay, who don't need to draw a line between in the sand. It's not like a game of football where there are two teams in competition."

I, too, post newswire items and comments to both sites. I largely enjoy the benefits of having two similar but different flavors of local IMCs to contribute to. This region is a big area and can benefit from relatively dissimilar voices speaking to largely the same issues of injustice. I have also followed the threads about the "split". It is painful to know that the wounds have so obviously not healed yet and to see one site so frequently disrespect the other as well as all IMCs in general.

"Even so, I don't know if Indybay gets to own the term "Bay Area." I don't know if Indybay owns such topics as environmentalism or animal rights. Not sure about the need to try to censor topics on another site."

No need to undermine the other's editorial policy. No need to independently decide to confuse the "official" designations that are commonly accepted by every other IMC worldwide. A spirit of mutual aid between the two would be the the benefit of everyone involved.

"But what stands out is the timing: I'm not sure why this caca is coming up now."

I don't know exact details of what happened with the "split" and why it continues to fester with passive aggressive and even open hostility to this date, but if things are ever going to get better, these two sites will have to not step on eachother's toes so openly and publicly show mutual respect and admiration for eachother's work.

Can both sides agree to take the higher road? I hasn't happened yet, and so the answer to that question remains to be seen.

add your comments

" No need to undermine the other's editorial policy."
by nessie Saturday, Jun. 25, 2005 at 9:36 AM

That's bad politics. It's also simply wrong. Everyone concerned, be they IMCistas or readers, has a moral duty to undermine bad policy. Indybay's editorial policy it terrible. They publish racist propaganda, they publish disinformation, they provide a soapbox for rightists, war mongers and apologists for capitalist exploitation, and they sully the reputation of all Indymedia by refusing to apply even the minimal degree of coherence to quality control that it would take to sort out the facts from the lies. That they also sometimes tell the truth doesn’t make them any better. In fact, it makes them worse, because it makes their lies all that more believable.

Anybody who thinks these people aren't liars can disabuse themselves of the notion by merely clicking here:

 http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/01/1671143_comment.php#1672316



add your comments

Agreement Interpretation
by IMC Lawyer Saturday, Jun. 25, 2005 at 11:17 AM

On every single page of this site, it says "San Francisco Indymedia". This is the correct nomenclature.

In the tag on parts of it, yes, it does refer to the Bay Area. This does not designate it as the "Bay Area IMC" which, as has been noted by our possessive, ownership-oriented commentator, is another IMC.

I cannot see how it would be fair to ban the use of the words "Bay Area" on this website -- in the title, on the pages, and etc. As long as there is not a concerted effort to designate this IMC as the "Bay Area IMC' I don't see a problem.



add your comments

neo-lexist nomenclaturism
by gimme a break Saturday, Jun. 25, 2005 at 11:48 AM

This nit picking serves only to obscure the real issue, a concerted effort to designate this IMC as the "Vichy-IMC.”

Cui bono, there, compadres? Cui bono there?

add your comments

Three languages and two commas in four word sentence!?!
by give US a break Saturday, Jun. 25, 2005 at 12:18 PM

“Neo-lexist nomenclaturism”!?!

Give us a freakin break, already. We know you know how to speak English. But what are you trying to say? Out with it, now. Don’t beat around the bush. Stop styling and get to the point. You do have a point, don’t you?

Well, do you?

add your comments

"Can both sides agree to take the higher road?"
by welp Saturday, Jun. 25, 2005 at 12:50 PM



just clarifying: "Can both sides agree to take the higher road?"

nessie: "Everyone concerned ... has a moral duty to undermine ... Indybay's editorial policy"

welp: guess that answers that



Affiliations. Dissolutions.: "Why not forgive and move on, even work together?"

welp: apparently an 18 month-old link is enough to justify current inter- or intra-IMC bad behavior and a self-righteous refusal to move on