According to its Mission Statement, Notts Indymedia is "committed to offering grassroots... news coverage". Indeed, the editorial guidelines state that "The IMC Collective encourages people and groups to organise horizontally". However, recent changes to the Notts site's editorial guidelines, and the actions of certain members of the collective, suggest that this is not taken seriously.
In an item on the documentation page (
https://docs.indymedia.org) titled NottsGuidelineChanges ( https://docs.indymedia.org/view/Local/NottsGuidelineChanges) and dated 27 Sep 2006 details of proposed changes to the editorial guidelines ( http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/nottinghamshire/static/editorial) are listed. These add further grounds for moderators to hide newswire articles and comments:-
• Comments that consist of unrelated personal rants
• Articles or comments that consist of large amounts of copy and pasted text from elsewhere. It is good practice to quote a few lines, to illustrate meaning, but link to any 'main-body of text'. This so to aid with the readablity of material added.
The proposal has been implemented as the new lines can be found in the editorial guidelines.
For those who aren’t subscribed to the features mailing list (most readers, I would assume) this was brought about largely as a response to one individual’s posts, and, in my opinion, was an attempt to restrict that person’s posting behaviour. Those who made the proposals suggested that this was in accordance with the Mission Statement’s ( https://docs.indymedia.org/view/Local/NottsMissionStatement)
grounds for intervention: “to maintain [Notts IMC’s] usefulness as a media resource and welcoming community space”. The posts in question frequently promoted ‘conspiracy theories’ and seemed to consist of lots of links and copied and pasted text from other sources.
For Indymedia to be truly grassroots and horizontal there needs to be a minimum of intervention on the part of collective members. Any such mediation creates a hierarchy of access, where moderators have the power to pick and choose what they do and don’t want on the newswire, and even in the comments.
I think that the idea that the collective should police the newswire, to make sure it’s a useful media resource and a welcoming community space is problematic. What constitutes a “useful media resource” will be different for different people, and will depend on what their agenda is. That agenda may be to selectively promote certain issues and causes, and to seek to hide certain others. The corporate and state media organs are already packed with such hidden agendas – something I think Indymedia should be trying to avoid. Indymedia is meant to be “based on the priniciples of free participation and association, mutual aid, open-source software, open publishing, and transparent decision-making”. Bringing in changes to the editorial guidelines by the backdoor (sorry, the documentation page) is not transparent, especially when those changes have the potential for serious restrictions on “free participation” and “open publishing”.
There is a similar lack of clarity regarding what a “welcoming community space” is. In the eyes of those proposing changes it seemed to be a) a space free from the “personal rants” of anyone with a threatening or uncommon political perspective and b) well written. Even aside from the fact that, if universally enforced, such changes would eradicate a lot of the most interesting material from Indymedia overnight, this is a dangerous and conservative path for a supposedly independent media to take. Indymedia should be a place where radical ideas can flourish, regardless of whether or not they upset a few of the punters. It should reflect a wide variety of different viewpoints rather than pandering to a mainstream that might object to certain content. In addition, by stressing “readability” the guidelines exclude those who are less confident that their writing styles will fit with what the moderators expect.
It is a dangerous development that new and potentially very restrictive guidelines can be brought in by those privileged in the hierarchy (moderators) to hide the posts of others at a less privileged level (posters). If you object to the content why not intervene on the same level by posting a comment, rather than pulling rank and hiding the comment? So far this development hasn’t caused much damage (other than the persecution of the individual for which it was intended), but now there are new ‘laws’ on the books that can be invoked at any time. Get rid of them! They only encourage the petty to continue with their censoring game. It's a good thing that the IMC encourages people to organise horizontally, but they should start practising what they preach.
https://docs.indymedia.org) titled NottsGuidelineChanges ( https://docs.indymedia.org/view/Local/NottsGuidelineChanges) and dated 27 Sep 2006 details of proposed changes to the editorial guidelines ( http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/nottinghamshire/static/editorial) are listed. These add further grounds for moderators to hide newswire articles and comments:- • Comments that consist of unrelated personal rants
• Articles or comments that consist of large amounts of copy and pasted text from elsewhere. It is good practice to quote a few lines, to illustrate meaning, but link to any 'main-body of text'. This so to aid with the readablity of material added.
The proposal has been implemented as the new lines can be found in the editorial guidelines.
For those who aren’t subscribed to the features mailing list (most readers, I would assume) this was brought about largely as a response to one individual’s posts, and, in my opinion, was an attempt to restrict that person’s posting behaviour. Those who made the proposals suggested that this was in accordance with the Mission Statement’s (
https://docs.indymedia.org/view/Local/NottsMissionStatement) grounds for intervention: “to maintain [Notts IMC’s] usefulness as a media resource and welcoming community space”. The posts in question frequently promoted ‘conspiracy theories’ and seemed to consist of lots of links and copied and pasted text from other sources.
For Indymedia to be truly grassroots and horizontal there needs to be a minimum of intervention on the part of collective members. Any such mediation creates a hierarchy of access, where moderators have the power to pick and choose what they do and don’t want on the newswire, and even in the comments.
I think that the idea that the collective should police the newswire, to make sure it’s a useful media resource and a welcoming community space is problematic. What constitutes a “useful media resource” will be different for different people, and will depend on what their agenda is. That agenda may be to selectively promote certain issues and causes, and to seek to hide certain others. The corporate and state media organs are already packed with such hidden agendas – something I think Indymedia should be trying to avoid. Indymedia is meant to be “based on the priniciples of free participation and association, mutual aid, open-source software, open publishing, and transparent decision-making”. Bringing in changes to the editorial guidelines by the backdoor (sorry, the documentation page) is not transparent, especially when those changes have the potential for serious restrictions on “free participation” and “open publishing”.
There is a similar lack of clarity regarding what a “welcoming community space” is. In the eyes of those proposing changes it seemed to be a) a space free from the “personal rants” of anyone with a threatening or uncommon political perspective and b) well written. Even aside from the fact that, if universally enforced, such changes would eradicate a lot of the most interesting material from Indymedia overnight, this is a dangerous and conservative path for a supposedly independent media to take. Indymedia should be a place where radical ideas can flourish, regardless of whether or not they upset a few of the punters. It should reflect a wide variety of different viewpoints rather than pandering to a mainstream that might object to certain content. In addition, by stressing “readability” the guidelines exclude those who are less confident that their writing styles will fit with what the moderators expect.
It is a dangerous development that new and potentially very restrictive guidelines can be brought in by those privileged in the hierarchy (moderators) to hide the posts of others at a less privileged level (posters). If you object to the content why not intervene on the same level by posting a comment, rather than pulling rank and hiding the comment? So far this development hasn’t caused much damage (other than the persecution of the individual for which it was intended), but now there are new ‘laws’ on the books that can be invoked at any time. Get rid of them! They only encourage the petty to continue with their censoring game. It's a good thing that the IMC encourages people to organise horizontally, but they should start practising what they preach.
Why assume bad faith?
21.02.2007 20:24
1. The meetings are always public and always advertised on the website in advance.
2. The agenda points are publicised with that.
3. Secondly, as you mention most people aren't subscribed to the features email list but it is publicly archived at
4. All minutes from meetings are publicly archived:
The question is how do you get people engaged with the project? There have been articles calling for peoples opinion on various issues related to the site and the wider project or get folk along to meetings:
But no comments. Nothing. For months and months now we have been crying out for help with a number of things. Some of this has to do with being part of the uk and global Indymedia network and comes down to some basic stuff like making sure we have servers to make the site actually run and working on projects such as mediaspaces during the climate camp, dsei or the g8. I agree with you that moderation should be kept to an absolute minimum, and this is the case. In our existance (2 years) we've probably hidden 2 or 3 articles. We hardly ever hide. In fact we have probably 'unhidden' more articles that were hidden by people from Indymedia UK outside of Nottingham than hidden articles. Remember that the guidelines are only guidelines and they are rarely act upon in the notts collective. If something is hidden this is always reported to the email list. Anyone can email this list and will get a response of the person who hid it and thus discussion starts within the collective and the article might be 'unhidden' by someone else, and so on. There are over 8 people with admin access to the website and moderation of the site is an organic process that involves many people.
What makes you think there would be such a thing as an 'elite' group? Anyone can get involved, in fact we have been crying out for help now for months and months but hardly anyone has responded. We've been going to events, encouraged and explain to people how to post stuff, turning out thousands of flyers, had countless meetings where only 2 or 3 people turned up, produced a print out, given talks at the uni, going to national indymedia meetings etc etc etc. Why assume 'bad faith'? Why didn't you email us and just speak with us straight about the changes to the guidelines? or at least talk to us before anonomously posting up an article like this? Again: why assume bad faith? The running of the site is a job day in day out. Part of this is to do with the legal implications of running an open-publishing website. Some of us do a lot for the project because we do want to create an online space for open media.
Indymedia has had many changes happen to it in the last few years and there will probably be many more in the future. On the uk website there suddenly appeared the promoted newswire and the default not-showing of comments. Well, we were the only collective to opt-out of the comments not-showing, because we wanted to keep it as open as possible. As I see it the guidelines were re-defined instead of changed. I mean as a moderator I'd have the ability to hide any article if I wanted to. That wouldn't require any changes to the guidlines. So really the fact that 'moderators have the power to pick and choose what they do and don’t want on the newswire, and even in the comments' is nothing new. The users of the site have put that trust in us for the last 2 years. This was just about re-defining the guidlines so in future if we were to hide something we could actually give a clearer reference to the guidelines when informing the email list about it. We don't hide more since the changes or less, it's just the same as it always was.
Do you have examples of specific occassions where we did hide something which in your eyes was unjust? Then get in touch. Be straight with us. It's no good just sitting there behind your pc and complain about it. Get involved with this stuff. Help shape it.
Wietse, who does some stuff for Notts Indymedia
More independent than (for example) The Independent
22.02.2007 04:59
Then came Indymedia. The unrewarded graft is the same, but the difference is that everyone can contribute more freely. OK there are 'guidelines', but I've seen them invoked very rarely concidering the thousands of articles & comments posted, and the hundreds of campaigns supported. I haven't always agreed 100% with the results of collective discussions, but that's part of working towards a concensus.
> "For Indymedia to be truly grassroots and horizontal there needs to be a minimum of intervention on the part of collective members."
- Yes, and thankfully that's the way it has been.
> "If you object to the content why not intervene on the same level by posting a comment, rather than pulling rank and hiding the comment?"
- I agree that this would be a good first choice, and obviously that usually happens, hence the healthy number of comments that many articles generate.
However if content or comments are clearly untrue, libelous, unneccesarily personal or invasive of someone's privacy then, rare and unfortunate though it may be, hiding is the only option. It is not a question of 'pulling rank', but rather acting responsibly on behalf of the wider network of readers and contributors, who have delegated trust to do so to those willing to put in the time to look after such matters.
Thanks to the poster of the main article above for reminding us (ie all Notts Indymedia visitors) of the editorial guidelines. I notice that they conclude:
"If you have any questions regarding the Editorial Guidelines, or you would like explaination about a hidden article or comment, please email:
I wonder how often critics have bothered to do so?
> By stressing “readability”, the guidelines exclude those who are less confident that their writing styles will fit with what the moderators expect.
I haven't noticed this 'stressed' - certainly not in the day-to-day running of the site - I don't know if this has even ever happened. However it may be just by chance that Indymedia is readable and, i.m.h.o., a good read. Is anyone suggesting that we should make up some articles 'containing numerous spelling or grammatical errors', simply to make less confident writers feel more at home?
> "It's a good thing that the IMC encourages people to organise horizontally, but they should start practising what they preach."
I find it hard to imagine a more open process than the major article that heading up the center of the site for a week or two, which promoted the open meetings held by a number of Indymedia collectives recently - shame that despite the prominence of the appeal only 5 people attended the Notts gathering.
Don't blame the messengers - join them.
Pat
i say thanks to indymedia, and for your time and trouble in making it happen
22.02.2007 12:56
sid
Don’t just complain – get involved
22.02.2007 13:06
Liz
But why the extra guidelines?
27.02.2007 12:42
In which case why add more guidelines to give moderators more power to hide? Is there a specific person or viewpoint that you feel needs eradicating?
"However if content or comments are clearly untrue, libelous, unneccesarily personal or invasive of someone's privacy then, rare and unfortunate though it may be, hiding is the only option."
That sounds reasonable. But you haven't said anything about "unrelated... rants" which is what the new guidelines are all about. Why have they been brought in? What are you trying to hide.
It is interesting that all of the other commenters have interpreted the article as an attack on Indymedia, rather than a comment on the rather bizarre and untransparent introduction of new guidelines to hide articles (which is what it actually is). It is also interesting that they urge the author to "get involved" and sort it out. I think we've all heard people talk about changing things "from the inside" before, and wondered how they could be so naive. All I'm interested in is why you've changed the guidelines. Are you trying to hide something?
-
The mainstream media is where the real censorship happens.
28.02.2007 10:26
" why add more guidelines to give moderators more power to hide? "
I've got some news for you: moderators could hide any article if they wanted to. They hold that power. That wouldn't require any changes to the guidlines. It's nothing new. So really moderators do not hold any 'more powers' by these changes. The users of the site have put the trust of moderation in us for the last 2 years. Just to mention it again: all moderater actions get reported to the list, which is publicly archived. Keep an eye on it if you feel so strongly about it: http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-notts-features/
" Is there a specific person or viewpoint that you feel needs eradicating? "
No. You keep reffering to 'a specific person' which we feel their viewpoint needs eradicating. If you feel we have unfairly hidden someones article or comment, please send an email with some links to the email list: imc-notts-features@lists.indymedia.org so everyone can look at and discuss it. If you continue to refer to the 'certain person' without giving details, there's little we can do. I'm unsure why you think that we're trying to silence someone. Indymedia is an open space and we're all here to facilitate and defend people's reports and viewpoints online. The mainstream media is where the real censorship happens.
" Are you trying to hide something? "
We're not trying to hide anything. Our process is as open as I think it could possibly be.
" we've all heard people talk about changing things "from the inside" before, and wondered how they could be so naive "
Have we? I doubt it. Also I wouldn't say 'naive', more like they haven't tried at all.
" you haven't said anything about "unrelated... rants" which is what the new guidelines are all about. Why have they been brought in? "
The guidelines are ever evolving and are in place to ensure the website is a useful community resource. The discussion was about comments which were totally unrelated to the article they were posted under. At the meeting on Oct 4th the guidelines were changed after agreement by everyone who was there, see: http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-notts-features/2006-October/1004-n4.html. I'd be up for having a look at the guidelines again and take on board some of the issues you're raising. After all, the site is supposed to be an open resource. However, I'd say it would be better if you get in touch with everyone via the mailing list instead of continuing this partly anonymous conversation: imc-notts-features@lists.indymedia.org
Wietse, as commented above
Indymedia Needs to Fill Gap Left by Corp
13.03.2007 12:47
IMCistas - Indymedia Needs to Fill Gap Left by Corp. Media
quote:
"After being rebuffed by the UK IMC over reports that I have placed on their site from many sources, some of which are foreign corp. news sites, it is necessary to explain something that is very important about the public's awareness. You IMCistas may not be totally aware of what a jewel you have. You may be the only hope we have of informing the people. This IMC network, although not as well known as it should be, is very important and VITAL to getting the truth out. "
Read the rest, and comments at:
Tash