Indymedia - in danger

by Abraham Abulafia Sat Dec 07, 2002 21:51

it appears your article has been overtaken by the type of infighting you are attempting to point out as detrimental.

It is unfortunate, humorous, tragic, and ultimately entirely predictable. And that is precisely the problem. With so much argument, and a great degree of argument split specifically along party, as opposed to political or rational lines, it will tend to infect the discussion as a whole. When vested interests are squabbling, the tendency is that anyone involved with the discussion will have to deal with refuting those interests.

I'd suggest, and this would be related to the story posted later on the newswire, that a communally agreed upon form of Scoop - http://scoop.kuro5hin.org/ - be used to host the site. It is open source, entirely free, and for those capable of it, entirely adaptable in whatever way one wishes.

The central theme of the ratings system runs something like this, all comments are subject to rating by all users, on a 1 to 5 basis. You can set your own viewing threshold - to an average rating of whatever it is you wish to see. The comment ratings history of all users is available for inspection to all users- both how they rate, and are rated in turn - and thus abuse is fairly easy to identify, and react to. Trusted users have the ability to rate comments at zero, and to review comments at that rating and vote them up. It takes a number of trusted users all rating at zero to cause a comment to be hidden. Trusted users are appointed automatically, when they reach an average comment rating high enough, for a sufficient number of comments, over a specific period of time. The status is subject to revocation if their average comment rating dips below the threshold.

The possibility is also present to vote on the suitability of stories for publication. All users can vote - and again the vote history is stored - and decide amongst themselves what is, and what is not in line with the site guidlines. I for one would like to see the possibility that the users, as a whole, could decide to junk raw propaganda, unfounded conspiracy theories, and personal attacks from the newswire.

Something most certainly needs to be done, in this regard. The signal to noise ratio is running far too low at the moment. Which is deeply unfortunate. And to a degree self perpetuating.

by Betty Fri Dec 06, 2002 12:47

If you seriously believe that Pat C makes any comments that are of any political credibility then you are either him or there is another twat in the world who shares his idiotic views. Regading a gulag for Pat C, that would be a waste of resources, just put the counter revolutionary prick against a wall and shoot him.

by frank spenser Thu Dec 05, 2002 23:34

Pat I dont know how you do it but you always seem to come out on top in these sessions, I know the opposition is weak and not too challenging but it is an remarkable record to humiliate the pompous assholes each and time. If the sp ever come to power (unlikely) you are in deep shit, appeal to their humanitarian wing and plead insanity and I am sure they will build a gulag or something to re- educate you and other 'counter revolutionaries.

by SHANTI Thu Dec 05, 2002 22:34

I PLANNED TO SAY THIS BEFORE ,BUT IN LEAVING THIS MESSAGE I WOULD HAVE BEEN ABUSING THE FACILITY OF PUBLISHING....fremen has given me the opportunity.

CORPORATIONS OF ALL SIZES SHARE INFORMATION,DEVELOPMENT COSTS ETC.. BECAUSE THEY DON'T CARE WHO THEY WORK WITH ,IF IT HELPS THEM GAIN PROFIT..THAT IS THEIR AIM-PROFIT

if the users of this site all share the aim of change as i believe we all do ...stop this nonsense-work together with your political rivals,work with everyone-a means to an end...even this article which was meant to reconcile these problems has degenerated into such a squabble.

i truly hope this site becomes the shared tool of everyone ,not a place to slag eachother-i do not know who the posters are-though i suspect some of them are carrying differences from the "real" world to this cyberspace.

take it shanti

by pat c Thu Dec 05, 2002 18:27

i once had a pacifist dog; he was worried by sheep.

rocks shouldn't get stoned; just say no.

by Stone Thu Dec 05, 2002 17:58

Sheep you are oppressing us Rocks by associating us with Pat C, back off wooly.

by Ba ba Thu Dec 05, 2002 17:55

Pat C you have really hit rock bottom what have us sheep ever done to you please leave us out of it.

by pat c Thu Dec 05, 2002 17:43

"PAT C
by Spokesperson - WHPCG Thu, Dec 5 2002, 4:30pm

The WHPCG would recommend that Pat C urgently gets some therapy. Man you are in need of some serious anger management counselling."

i've proved you right by suggesting that people stop squabbling. i've reinforced your point by suggesting opponents agree to disagree.

how violent of me!

i should just accept that there are people on indy who know whats best for everyone; lets all be docile sheep & everything will be ok.

by Spokesperson - WHPCG Thu Dec 05, 2002 17:30

The WHPCG would recommend that Pat C urgently gets some therapy. Man you are in need of some serious anger management counselling.

by niorrre Thu Dec 05, 2002 14:09

To be perfectly honest it indicates sad bastards with too much time on their hands.

by Dave D Thu Dec 05, 2002 13:59

I suppose unless a rich person gives all their money away their an enemy of yours. Also, are black rich people also the enemy of black people. What about those with one black parent, one white parent, an asian girlfriend and a fairly well off background - because they're a doctor let's say. On what side of this simple rich/poor struggle do the naturally reside?

by cleo mcwilliams Thu Dec 05, 2002 13:47

The petty bitching witnessed here is not representative of the SP/sin fein/swp/anarchist/wsm/pup people who use indymedia. What we are witnessing here is a tactic used by capitalist/authortarian totalitarian intelligence services to divide and rule as usual, a tactic which is very evident in belfast and northern ireland.
Some of these people have tried to imitate my style of writing, but what is missing in their feeble attempts at misrepresenting me, is the fact that i am genuinely nice, straightforward, straight talking goodnatured person, i tell it like it is. I am totally open minded and unbigoted, my working class integrity, sincerity and concern for both the loyalist and republican working class communities and paramilitaries shines through my posts, which is why i tell it like it is. There is one common enemy which we all share protestant, catholic, loyalist, republican, anarchist, environmentalist, it is THE RICH, be they irish or british, and their military lackeys and pig protecters. There is no getting away from the truth, the people who pull the strings all over the world and are responsible for so much death, poverty and misery all over the world, are the filthy RICH, who populate the higher echelons of the establishment, binky old boy snobs and withered fat multinational company executives, gargolyed general warmongers and cold hearted misfit mad scientist maniacs all with a steely wish to test out their latest weapons on us, and play their strategic war games. with us as their chess pieces. They all share a common enemy too, it is us, the poor, blacks and those who would query their rule and their sovereign desire to monopolise, destroy and exploit all of the world's resources for the filthy rich few at the expense of the worlds poor majorities.

by pat c Thu Dec 05, 2002 12:53

i replied to your posting in the spirit of stopping squabbles on indymedia. i realised that i was one of the people you were referring to. i presumed however your article implied an evenhandedness on your part.

apparently i was wrong, what you want kept off of indymedia are articles that YOU disagree with.
this section 31 mentality is disturbing. i dont think indy is there just for me. but you shouldnt assume that its there just for you & that opinions you disagree with should be deleted.

perhaps your posting was just intended to start off another set of squabbling. your unwillingness to identify yourself makes me wonder.

lets stop the squabbling, but lets do so by recognising that misrepresentation has taken place on both sides. dont let this be yet another attempt to bring section 31 on to indy.

by Fremen Thu Dec 05, 2002 11:50

With all due respect I don't actually think you do agree Pat C. You are one of the people that my posting is referring to, and I don't think that this site exists to provide you with an arena to simply have a go at everyone you disagree with.
Give us all a break, if you have news and information or analysis post it - leave everything else out!

by pat c Thu Dec 05, 2002 11:23

some of us here have views which we passionately believe in, this does not mean every debate should degenerate into abuse.

however, misrepresentation works both ways. i was called a nationalist, catholic nationalist and fascist by members of the SP. they should not be surprised if in return they are reffered to as loyalists.

if every republican posting is going to be attacked by sp members, again they should expect retalitory attacks on sp postings.

this is not a desirable situation; on several occasions i suggested to the SP that we agree to disagree on the national question. they however laughed at this and accused me of being afraid to debate with them.

if every republican socialist article is fair game for attack & misrepresentation by the SP; then the SPs activities in QUB & their policies on Orange marchs will come under closer scrutiny.
A suggestion by the SP that honouring Pat Finucane was somehow sectarian , is bound to cause debate.

so lets accept that we have different opinions on the national question. that does not mean that i am a catholic nationalist; nor does it mean that finghin is a loyalist.