At times *most* the comments (and many articles) on this site are from pro-imperial, pro-establishment trolls -- Indymedia is part of the terrain of the information war and currently it's a war that they appear to be winning and this is, in part, because many activists are either unaware of the extent of this disinformation or are in denial about it's existence and Indymedia activists are clearly not immune from this, see, for example the recent "Indymedia UK, the rise of the independents" article discussion:

 http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-moderation/2009-June/thread.html#1504

Stupid postings get little attention. Trolls get slated, people have a good barney and sometimes, pertinent arguments give insights and alter opinions. Please leave well alone and let people sort out the good stuff for themselves. I've seen excellent comments deleted by IM because they responded to a troll but seeing that argument exploded was valuable.
Take the postings about Calais for example. They attracted some pretty far-right scum-bag comments but these were shown up for the pathetically weak arguments and downright lies that they are. The thing is, even among fairly sympathetic observers, some of those nationalistic thoughts (or worries about population, resources etc) will have rung a bell to many less nutty, and to have these things discussed and myths exploded is really important. People can make up their own minds and don't need censorship by others making decisions on what is and isn't acceptable.
(And I think Tamsin Ormond is a self-serving, attention-seeking distraction from the massive importance of climate chaos)

I agree with the comments made here. Some people are clearly out to troll around on IM and what their motives are anyone can guess at. It seems strange that they should use IM comments as a way to generate discord and mistrust.

Do they not understand that anybody can arrive at IM for any reason and when they arrive it is very important that they see an adult and mature place. IM does some very good work. Discord is not good.

But of course there are others who have no interest in IM and are just here to cause discord because they are paid to. Or incorrectly think they are performing some public service and sow that discord voluntarily. In the end, they will have nothing to be proud of.

But in a way its very helpful that these trolls do post. Lets face it, for the most part they are just very stupid people and coherent argument is not really their strong point. Others here have come along and have made short work of them.

Its a difficult one. On the one hand the trolls are annoying, but on the other hand, without them posting, we would have no way of making them stupid...for all the world to see.

Writing THAT article was only ever going to get THAT result.

its right to say that the bullshit on here is so bad that people don't take it seriously

theres' loads of problems with this site, not least that it isn't run by a collective. just ask any of the moderators if you can see the minutes of their last meeting, I think that will prove the point, there aren't any open collective meetings

being run by a collective and openness are part of what you have to do to call yourself indymedia, therefore THIS IS NOT INDYMEDIA

sorry to be breaking the news to you but everyone who's already realised this has left and are now using imc-london, imc-northern and imc-bristol becuase they ARE run by collectives. you should join them there.

its right to say that the bullshit on here is so bad that people don't take it seriously

yet it appears that this shit's serious enough for you to make comment

If Indymedia UK isn't run by a collective, who is it run by? As to the Northen and London collectives mentioned - they are no more open, nor larger than the group working on Indymedia UK, Indymedia UK continues to operate open lists and there iis a network meeting due imminently. What is more to the point is that not enough people are involved in the process. Indymedia users are free to join collectives, join lists and contribute to the running of the site.

I'd urge people to compare the sites that @ntififascist points to and see if his claims that people have left to go to those sites ring true. Then read their lists and count how many people are in the collectives.

I love IndyMedia...and so do my friends.

We always read it. It makes us feel all fluffy inside.

So see you on the streets guys. I'm the pretty girl with nice legs. x

just wanted to say that i wholeheartedly agree with this article. I feel it is important for my self that i don't define myself by what i am against, but by what i am for and what i can do to make positive changes. Sometimes this leads to mistakes and discord with others, but learning from this and learning to work collectively with others is why i give so much of my time to imc, not just northern but supporting all imc's.

I find it sad that people above don't see our collective as something they can get involved in, that is open. We try really hard to make it so, publishing our minutes and upcoming meetings openly, and these can be seen by anyone who wants to at  http://we.riseup.net/imc-northern

we are always welcoming of newcomers and try to take our meetings to them where they are to make it easier to get involved. Anyone in the north who would like to host one or get involved is welcome to join our mailing list and drop us a line. I'm not sure if there is a minimum of people who make something collectively run, but we always have a reasonable attendence from active members, and often have new people too, having made the decision to base the project on face to face interaction rather than relying on the internet which can be a barrier to some.

It's obvious that indymedia needs to change if it is to continue to provide a place that people choose to come to, and what that change is should be discussed by the most important people in the project, the users of the various indymedia sites. We need to look at how the citizen journalism services now found all over the internet, in places like twitter, facebook and blogs have changed what we need to provide as an open and inclusive alternative to these proprietary and, from an activists point of view, dangerous sites.

The uk site that functioned amazingly in its heyday, through the hard work of a huge collective group over the last 10 years, needs to be looked at to see if it needs to offer something new. This goes from the site you see and how it works, right down to the process behind it. This needs huge discussion not just from those currently involved in running the sites, but from those who read and write the stories and comments and would like to get more involved, but aren't sure how.

I've previously made no secret of my own frustration with how the uk site currently works, as chris pointedly demonstrated with the link above, but i've learned that the only way to make positive change is to be positive at every stage. For example, as imc northern england, one of the ways we are trying to do this is by going out to events and demos with equipment that people can read and write their news with, and most importantly talking lots and lots with the groups we meet. It isn't perfect and won't please everyone if we turn up at glastonbury or climate camp, but we are trying to reach out and get people involved.

Maybe it might be useful if this thread gets used as a place for people to offer suggestions for how indymedia in the uk could change for the better?

Imagine that this site represents people that we may find living alongside us in a future community. Some will have such extremely different views from you, you won't be able to live together. Some will express opinions that the majority don't like and they will be talked to or ignored, argued with, reasoned with until an agreement is reached or they leave to find more compatible people. The point is, you try to work things out to build up a society from the bottom. If you impose immediate rejection/selection at the start (like a bouncer at a nightclub) you have a State and not a society. If we can't even use these principles on Indymedia, what hope is there for building non-hierarchical communities in the future?

"Despite that, this place is currently the best of its type on offer"

Got there in the end?

(hint, you'll have to look at the hidden 'view all posts' editorial link to see it)

The comments here are usually more interesting than the stories, and Indymedia's comment system is seriously outdated. Have a look at sites like the technology/geek site  http://slashdot.org for an example of how self-moderated comment rating can work.

A problem with totally uncensored posting though is that Indymedia is supposed to be an alternative to the mainstream hierarchical press. So if you say absolutely anything goes, it can easily descend into just another outlet for mainstream ideas. Ideally though if the majority of people here are anarchist/anti-authoritarian they should be able to moderate the site themselves in a decentralised fashion. It could only be "taken over" if trolls and the right wing manage to become a majority here.

How is Indymedia funded anyway? Servers and connectivity don't grow on trees. I am guessing by a secretive weathy donor, which isn't good for the general idea of decentralisation.

I could not agree more and have been concerned at what is happening with Indymedia UK for some time.

An intelligent article is posted, to then see mindless purile drivel posted in the comments, which at best indicates those posting the childish drivel. They are of the mindset of those who in the past would have chalked up abuse on the wall in the Gents in a pub or engaged in mindless vandalism. Or is it worse, they are there to create dissent.

Comments should be there to add more information, point to where more information may be found, correct inaccuracies and errors, and yes, to air genuine differences of opinion.

But this is not what is happening. The low point has been the use of Indymedia UK as a platform to launch vicious personal attacks on Tamsin Omond.

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/09/438312.html?c=on

All what this is achieving is to devalue Indymedia UK as an independent, radical source of information. But then maybe that is the intention.

I raised my concerns on this with Indymedia UK a couple of years ago.

How to resolve this I do not know. If it is Open Publishing, then it has to be open to all, then you let in the scum who seem determined to destroy Indymedia UK. If it is moderated, then it begs the accusation of censorship and it is no longer Open Publishing.

Not an easy circle to square, but something has to be done, otherwise Indymedia UK loses all credibility as a responsible independent source of information.

About the only good thing that has come out of the abuse of Tamsin Omond is that it has forced this shit that was bubbling away up to the surface and it is not a pretty sight.

Sale of pirate DVDs at Anrachist Bookfair.

Always a good selection. About the only reason worth attending.