Indymedia Dublin Meeting

by Chris Murray - The Unmanageables Mon Sep 11, 2006 11:22

I propose, as a regular contributor

an independent minutes taker and an agreed women's grassroot mediator.
otherwise the issue of gender balance will not be addressed in an open and mature fashion.

Also I want to add to the agenda under AOB, the continous blocking of proposed
female editors and strategies for dealing with harassment/abuse.

regards, Chris Murray.

by pat c Mon Sep 11, 2006 11:32

calling for an independent minutes taker is not helpful. it implies that you mistrust the present indymedia ctivists. Do you truly believe that a false account of the meetings proceedings would be produced?

Regarding women editors I agree it is appalling that none of the indy editors are female. but not all blockings of prospective female editors have been unfair. one person in particular abuses anyone who disagrees with her. i would not trust her as an editor.

i think indymedia.ie is suffering from institutional sexism rather than any particular editor being sexist or mispgynist.

by chris murray Mon Sep 11, 2006 11:36

pat- I certainly do not, but there is an issue of gender balance and I was at the last meeting
and the minute taker had to leave. I do not imply, as well you know.
I am stating that I believe this is a crucial meeting and an independent minute taker should be
in attendance.

also, given that some women who regularly contribute have children, I am assuming that
it has been organised in a child friendly manner.

as to the mediator- this is important-it is about neutrality.

by James Mon Sep 11, 2006 12:37

The meeting is an open one and regular contributors to indymedia as well as those interested in helping to do the background organisation are welcome. The meeting will probably just use volunteers to minute, but anybody who comes is welcome to take as comprehensive notes as they wish. This isn’t Galway District Court!

Secondly, the original proposal for the meeting suggested that attendees contribute €5, which partly goes towards contributing towards the cost of attendees paying somebody to mind their child for the afternoon. Probably this figure can be revised as appropriate. It would be handy to know in advance if people with kids will be wanting to avail of this, so we know how much, if anything, is needed. You can do this via the imc-ireland list or by the ordinary contact form.

by Miriam Cotton Mon Sep 11, 2006 13:00

I dont know if the agenda is set in stone but, under Item 2, is the discussion going to look at the issue of sexism within the Indymedia.ie collective?

Isnt it time that a meeting was held in another location besides Dublin? Why not Galway, Meath, Rossport or Cork e.g. If there were a schedule of meetings planned well in advance in different locations, people would be able to make arrangements to get there. As it happens, the meetings are all arranged exclusively to suit the people living in Dublin, with short enough notice for those who have to make child care arrangements and stay away over night in order to attend. How many on the collective (approved/not approved/rejected) are from outside Dublin?

by Clare Mon Sep 11, 2006 13:16 Dublin

"2) Women and Indymedia (Originally based on absence of newswire category which has since been introduced, but well worth discussing.)"

Just to clarify, the topic that has been added to indymedia. ie is called "gender and sexuality". While this is a welcome addition it must be recognised that although it may be some what related it is clearly different to the much needed topic on feminism/womens rights/anti-patriarchy.

by James Mon Sep 11, 2006 13:39

Discussing sexism under item 2 would make sense as would Clare’s suggestion.
-----------------

The meeting was first proposed back in June and the proposal was passed in on 27th July, so there was a fair period of notice. It’s primarily about running indymedia which is why it was proposed and discussed on the lists, where those with an active interest in running tend to reside.

Secondly, it was also proposed – and agreed – that having the meeting in Dublin would make sense given the number of people involved in running it who live there. However as this obviously places a burden on those travelling it was agreed that everybody would contribute towards the travelling expenses for folks as appropriate (similar to the method used for contributing towards childcare). Again, it would be helpful if those interested used the contact form to give us some advance warning.

Finally, there is nothing stopping those interested in this indymedia - or indeed another one - from organising a meeting anywhere in the country.

by Chris Murray - The Unmanageables Mon Sep 11, 2006 13:45

I would like to add that no-one has an ownership of the IMC ethos.

but maybe outreach and setting up local eds, rural eds and of
course tech collaboration/outreach for womyn.

some of us do it online with global, reduces the personal contact aspect.

James open meetings with a roving mike and no table separation makes
people physically comfartable-depending on the size of the venue.

by wageslave Mon Sep 11, 2006 14:54

I think the topic gender/sexuality is a sensible category and covers all bases.
If indy is to be pressured into having a seperate "womens rights" category then I insist on there being a "mens rights" category too. It's only fair and it would be sexist to do otherwise.

See where this is going ?

The fact is that if an editor edits with balance,awareness, intelligence and sensitivity to all then it doesn't matter what gender they are. Choosing a bad editor under pressure for the sake of being seen to be PC (i.e. tokenism) would be a disservice to all genders alike. Better to encourage lots of women/LGBT to get involved actively in posting to indy, have a transparent and fair electoral system then let good editors from all gender bases rise up to the top on merit alone. The key to a fair and balanced indy editorial group is a transparent and fair electoral system BASED ON MERIT ALONE. There are difficulties in having a fair selection system but if all genders are made to feel equally comfortable and participation is high among all genders then good people should naturally surface from all groups.
how about some sort of post rating system combined with number of posts to make someone eligible for moderating (regardless of gender) as is the case on some BBS systems. perhaps 500 posts and a sanity rating of 75% where each post/comment can be rated for sanity :)

might i also make a few more suggestions
(1)
that dodgy posts are no longer deleted or hidden but moved to a seperate area of the site (a "playpen"??) where they don't interfere with the high quality element of the site and where they can be easily seen if people wish to do so, perhaps only by paid subscribers to indy. (perhaps a token e5?)
That way, we "nutters" can still have our posts seen but would have to contribute something to the running of indy to do so. This would then provide a non corporate revenue stream for indy and would still be preferable to the current "disappearing posts" subjective censorship scenario.
It would help end the feeling that If posts don't quite reach the subjective standards of perfection required by whatever editor happens to be at work, they will disappear with little trace. Sure it's open publishing but the lists system is very clunky, frustrating and unsatifsctory. The fact is, other indys don't censor and things work out ok for them. This (playpen) idea might be an interesting compromise and might help support indy financially
(2)
In practice the whole lists thing is very clunky and slow at best. A simple BBS system ( with logging )would be so much faster and more accessible. Even in parallell with the current system, it would be a good thing.
A BBS for post discussion is available technology and easily set up and would provide better transparency and editorial accountability. It would provide a whole other dimension to indy too!! It might also serve to increase confidence in indy's integrity and neutrality :) and might also make the tireless background work performed by the indy editorial staff more visible and hence better appreciated. :)

just my 2c worth

by Robot Mon Sep 11, 2006 14:58

"perhaps 500 posts and a sanity rating of 75% where each post/comment can be rated for sanity :) "

Can I rate myself as many times as I like? I'll get working on the bot right now so.

by Mark G Mon Sep 11, 2006 15:12

"that dodgy posts are no longer deleted or hidden but moved to a seperate area of the site (a "playpen"??) where they don't interfere with the high quality element of the site and where they can be easily seen if people wish to do so, perhaps only by paid subscribers to indy. (perhaps a token e5?)"

Deleted/hidden posts can be easily seen. They are archived here
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-ireland-newswire/

by Another Robot Mon Sep 11, 2006 15:17

It would help end the feeling that If posts don't quite reach the subjective standards of perfection required by whatever editor happens to be at work, they will disappear with little trace.

Helping to end feelings? What about helping to end feelings that Indy is a valuable shared resource (with approximately 300,000 eyeballs at times) which is exploited by narcissitic abusers that shout louder than anyone else. Indy has had amazing stories covered with higher accuracy than the corporate media and trying to massage the sensibilities of patent loons is an insult and abuse of the majority of sane contributors.

The fact is, other indys don't censor and things work out ok for them.
The fact is that you haven't provided any facts or examples to back that up. The fact is that Indy does not censor (except for racist, fascist etc). Why not ask a certain rightwing bulletin board for a contribution to provide a "non-corporate revenue stream"?

In practice the whole lists thing is very clunky and slow at best. A simple BBS system ( with logging )would be so much faster and more accessible.
Much faster for what? Making loads of posts without spending time thinking about them? What examples are there of editorial decision making teams running on bulletin board software? What about other large scale projects involving people interacting primarily over the net?

A BBS for post discussion is available technology and easily set up and would provide better transparency and editorial accountability.
How?

Most of your post would qualify as "unsupported assertion" at this stage. Waving technology at the human problem of co-operation doesn't solve it in all cases. It might do, but it's got to be thought out carefully and should have some basis in evidence from other situations.

by M Cotton Mon Sep 11, 2006 15:26

Glad to hear sexism is not ruled out under point 2 of the agenda.

Anyone who has challenged sexism on Indymedia.ie is labelled a bully and an abuser. That is intimidation and the issue is a matter of serious concern on the Global Indymedia women's list at the moment. That is not a 'threat'.

For the record, the womens list is the place where those of us who have been discriminated against have taken our complaints and others who are worried about it have registered there too. There are currently five women from Ireland using the list, so far as I am aware. In doing so we have been careful to acknowledge all that is positive about this newswire, while abhoring the latent, impenetrable sexism which so many of you are seemingly incapable of getting your heads around. We have been able to compare notes with women from all around the world many of whom are reporting identical treatment in other countries. There is particular interest in the Irish situation because, whatever you choose to tell yourselves, the sexism is so striking. I have posted copies of exchanges with different people (unedited and complete with the worst examples of my own anger in order to be fair) and have had a flood of outraged support from many women - some privately and many on the list. I am also in touch with two academics, one in San Francisco and one in Japan. Having looked over the material which I forwarded to them, one of among many comments they made back to me was that I was, in fact, being much too appeasing towards the sexists on the collective. These are experienced IMC and media specialists, one of whom strongly feels that Indymedia.ie should be made an example of. The other comment which has been made several times is that it is clear that the Ireland collective (approved members), just from the tone of the way we are communicated with alone, does not respect its female contributors as much as it does the men.

Rsearch on IMC and sexism has revealed that you are playing to type in Ireland - placing technical expertise above other considerations which automatically bars women who, for reasons beyond their control, are more likely not to be as au fait with. When I told members of the global list that I had been accused of sexism on this list for making that observation, they were astounded, not least because they understand, unlike you, that I am describing a symptom of educational sexism. REcognition of the exact point I made on the editorial list has been a major consideration for IMC women. It is bizarre to accuse me of sexism merely for describing a symptom of it. When I further told them that same bizarre accusation of sexism against me was also deployed as a reason for barring me as an editor..... Let's just say it didnt go down very well. The whole way women are educated and directed while they grow up has almost guaranteed that we dont do tech as well as most men - especially for people in my age group - it may be less true of younger women. Lack of technical expertise or aptitude is not seen as a bar to being an editor among collectives who have been prepared to work this issue through. The question is, what is there to value and welcome from women about the things we CAN do - some of which includes things that men are not very good at ,for all the same reasons. Some people do tech and dont write. Some write and dont do tech. Some can do a bit of both. We need each other and it is not a big deal to work it out, if people are really interested in being fair.

There is little point in organising a meeting out of Dublin if those who have control over the site do not attend.

Of course most of the contributors come from Dublin: that'll be because that's where all the meetings take place. If you are serious about being a national newswire then you owe it to people who have taken you seriously (and helped to build your readership and reputation) around the country to extend some courtesy and practical support of this sort. Anyway, I thought it was not supposed to be about the numbers. If one angry man can block a woman as an editor against the wishes of several women, then it follows that meeting venues ought not to be decided on the basis of where most people live, either.

Among all the women I have spoken to and shown evidence of this situaiton to, only one has disagreed with me and she is a member of the Indymedia.ie collective herself.

by Interested Mon Sep 11, 2006 15:36

I'd like to see what has been said and to make some contributions. Please tell me how to subscribe. Also, who is the woman that disagreed with you?

by Libertine Mon Sep 11, 2006 15:38

"Among all the women I have spoken to and shown evidence of this situaiton to, only one has disagreed with me and she is a member of the Indymedia.ie collective herself. "

There are no women editors so I think you have got something mixed up there. In any case you seem to believe thay this particular woman is plotting against you. I am sure the men have brainwashed her.

by iosaf Mon Sep 11, 2006 15:40

Perhaps you'd like to explain that one.

The women's list is open to all women who are invovled in indymedia worldwide. You goto the indymedia homepage (where the franchise begins) here http://www.indymedia.org and go to "get involved". There are several Irish women on the list.

by Interested Mon Sep 11, 2006 15:45

I did as suggested and went to the get involved link and there I saw that its being closed down and that there is no link to a womens list. Could you be more specific please?

by Chekov Mon Sep 11, 2006 15:47

For a start it's simply not true to say that other IMC's don't 'censor' content. As far as I know every IMC that tried to practice absolute 'free speech' died within months. They get engulfed by spam and offensive content unbelievably quickly which drowns everything else out. It's a simple fact that in the time that it takes to write something properly researched and with a bit of thought, one can copy and paste hundreds of articles or produce dozens of thought-free off-the-top-of-my-head rants. At the very least editorial guidelines are required in order to level the playing field to allow properly thought out articles to have a chance.

Having said that, I'm entirely open to the idea of making it more obvious to people how to find the reasons for editorial action. I've proposed moving some editorial discussions to the site but these proposals have been blocked.

On the other hand, as the robot above says, we don't have any evidence that indymedia users see 'censorship' as a problem. In general, 99% of the complaints of censorship come from people who either:
a) just don't like indymedia and aren't trying to be constructive at all (trolls)
or
b) believe that they should have a right to post whatever they fancy irrespective of the goals of the site or the indymedia project or the guidelines (narcissists)

To back this up, I can point to the fact that of the various complaints that we receive, there have been virtually no attempts to suggest modifications to the editorial guidelines and many don't even bother to read them. Furthermore, the only piece of evidence that we have (a survey carried out a year ago) identified trolling as the biggest problem on indymedia - which is entirely the opposite conclusion.

Still, I suspect that there are a number of people who are put off indymedia by the fact that the editorial machinations appear to be arbitrary and obscure to inexperienced users and that we should make an effort to make the operation of the rules to be more transparently obvious to users. Although, we would have to be very careful to do so in such a way as not to provide greater opportunities to the trolls and narcissists to waste our precious volunteered time.

Finally, a persistent complaint that I have about such proposals is that the people who make them tend to treat indymedia as a service that exists to fulfill their demands. This is a manifestation of the consumer mentality that crops up again and again in our society. If you think that indymedia's editorial discussion should be chanelled into a bulletin board system - DIY. All of the content is copyleft, you are free to take the content and channel it into any old software you want and do whatever you want with it. You can even set up your own indymedia site with a full copy of our archives if you want and run it with whatever editorial guidelines you want. We are volunteers and, to put it simply, if we don't like an idea we're not going to spend our precious free time implementing it.

It's interesting that of all of the people who complained about the lack of a gender category, not a single one of them went to the trouble of going through the archives to suggest articles to be re-categorised to populate the category, despite several requests for help on the lists. Indymedia is a participatory project and we've always had a DIY ethic. There is no point in moaning about problems if you're not willing to help out with solutions. It's very easy to complain about what other people should be doing, when you're expected to do it yourself, it concentrates the mind and mitigates against ill-thought out solutions.

by haha Mon Sep 11, 2006 15:48

in fact when u look at the countries The Republic Of Ireland aint even listed as far as i can see

by peripheraldisorder Mon Sep 11, 2006 15:51

i dont think you are achieving anything by petty comments on the newswire chris murray, it is obvious that the indymedia collective has orgainsed this meeting to deal with any relevant issues within the indymedia collective, if you think gender imbalance is one of them then go along and voice your discontent as opossed to provocating an argument that ought to be held in a more formal context.

by wageslave Mon Sep 11, 2006 15:55

robot,
My intention was to stimulate discussion not enter a pissing contest. Can we alter the tone and make it more constructive?.

If you have things figured out so well then Lets have some constructive suggestions from you rather than just having a go and scoring points.

Sure I agree my suggestions aren't perfect. But if you are going to go out of your way to point that out then please, go all the way. I welcome your suggestions on how they could be improved or offer some better ones. Let's go somewhere constructive with this

The current system has a few problems. I'm not alone in thinking this.
So tell me, how do YOU think you could improve on the current system??

by Chekov Mon Sep 11, 2006 15:55

"i don't understand what is meant by "extending the indymedia franchise" Chekov."

I don't mean anything by it. I didn't compile the agenda, it was compiled by suggestions on the editorial list, in a thread which anybody was free to respond to and to add items to. I assume that whoever added it will make it clear at the meeting.

by Another Robot Mon Sep 11, 2006 16:03

So tell me, how do YOU think you could improve on the current system??

The editorial list should be stricter in enforcing standards for communication by email which are at this stage widely understood and evolved over approximately three decades. All subscribers should be required to acknowledge that they understand and agree to abide by these minima.

Voluminous and repetitive postings should be discouraged by some agreed set of rules which fairly allow right of reply, but prevent swamping of the list by bullies.

Editors should grow a spine and be less passive in accepting bullying.

Finally, it's weird that you'd see disagreement with you as a pissing contest. It's not, it's disagreement. Don't think of everything in terms of your ego.

by Chekov Mon Sep 11, 2006 16:03

Miriam, although you are a very good writer and a very good contributor, I feel that you are prone to give very one sided summaries of debates that you are involved in. Some of the various claims that you make above are simply not true. For example, you were not ever accused of sexism for making such an observation, you were accused of sexism (rightly imho) for using gender based put-downs against women who disagreed with you on two occassions. From this observation, I sincerely doubt that the discussion on the women's list is anything approaching a fair or balanced exposition of the situation.

Wageslave / robot. I agree that robot's response was too defensive, but I hope that you understand that we have become accustomed to various people throwing malicious and false accusations against indymedia and using any old thing with which to beat us, simply because they didn't get their way in some debate or other.

by myself Mon Sep 11, 2006 16:07

You said
"If indy is to be pressured into having a seperate "womens rights" category then I insist on there being a "mens rights" category too. It's only fair and it would be sexist to do otherwise."

It is not true that treating people the same is treating them equally. There is still a wage gap, a sexual division of labour, 90% of the land in Ireland is owned by men, women do two thirds of the worlds work and recieve 10% of the world's wages, there are no female indymedia editors, women make up only 13% of the Dail... blahblah. I could go on and on...

To say we have to treat everyone the same, men's rights category if there is a women's rights category, does not take into account the differences. Women are still not treated equally to men and that's just a fact. Until we are, unfortunately, there is a need to draw attention to the fact. Even if that means having a special women's rights section, or anti--patriarchy I think is a good suggestion.

The editors thing is disgraceful, I'm shocked to hear there are no women. It's good that you're talking about it though.

by toe-tape - the unmans Mon Sep 11, 2006 16:11

the links are;

imc-womyn@lists.indymedia.org

http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-womyn

itsa breathing and collaborative space.
Respect,

unless you really want to know whose on their period-like the footie.

ps: it comes in all colurs. look at the other sites. anti-repression, anti-patriarchy, gay rights-working categories.
gender is not black n white

by iosaf Mon Sep 11, 2006 16:12

over the last year I have consistently raised the hope of a 2nd indymedia site for Ireland during which time I have directed many female contributors to the Women's global list where all accounts are they are very happy.

Now chekov if I suggested "extending the franchise" but not quite in those words - & I am as everyone knows in Barcelona whence I never come to Dublin -


How can I explain what I meant at the meeting?

by Interested Mon Sep 11, 2006 16:13

I followed that link and it says the list doesn't exist

by Libertine Mon Sep 11, 2006 16:14

"Editors should grow a spine and be less passive in accepting bullying."

Maybe what you see as bullying is merely disagreement. See your own comments below and check out the beam in your own eye.

"Finally, it's weird that you'd see disagreement with you as a pissing contest. It's not, it's disagreement. Don't think of everything in terms of your ego."

by chris murray - unmans Mon Sep 11, 2006 16:15

i have two printouts of articles censored by indy.ie

by me.

about gender and abuse

by Fed Up Mon Sep 11, 2006 16:19

'The editors thing is disgraceful, I'm shocked to hear there are no women. It's good that you're talking about it though.'

But if anyone tries to raise it on the Editorial List they are told there is no problem. The real problem is that the existing editors are not prepared to stand up to the one woman hating male editor. This one editor has managed on his own to block a woman editor and has given no reasons or made up reasons for doing so.

by wageslave Mon Sep 11, 2006 16:23

as usual, fair comment chekov. I consider you one of the more balanced editors on indy. I do think your attitude to contributors could be a little less derisory though. ;-)

The guidelines ARE fairly sensible, its the subjective interpretation of them that can be a problem. This would be less so if moderators actions were more in the public eye. This would "focus the mind" and make people think a little harder before deleting something.

Perhaps there is a case to be made for a fleshing out of the what the spirit of each of the guidelines is to assist editors in their implementation.

I'd be happy to help out in some way if I could. Indymedia is a worthwhile endeavour.

by pat c Mon Sep 11, 2006 16:24

not everything written by me is a work of literature, sometimes they even deserve to be hidden and sadly the same is true of your goodself. maybe there were sound reasons for the hiding of your articles.

please name the articles and the reasons given for hiding them.

by Interested Mon Sep 11, 2006 16:24

"I have directed many female contributors to the Women's global list where all accounts are they are very happy."

But where is it? None of the links given above point to it and your description was vague and pointed to a page that says its out of date

by iosaf Mon Sep 11, 2006 16:24

http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-women
You have to introduce yourself. You also must be a woman, grrrl or womyn. Calling youself "sofia" like i do is not enough. Those who run the women's list are already a bit concerned at irish indymedia users - & irish men pretending to be women - so don't abuse their global space. Ireland has already attracted a bit of attention-

which brings me to another thing I'd like to raise at the moment : a suggestion I made in April on the lists that we ask people to introduce themselves on our lists. The adminstrator said he doubted such a usual indymedia practise would suit indymedia ireland users. Following that indymedia "netiquette" an editor of Barcelona indymedia who is spending increasing time in Dublin and has been making contact with political groups in Ireland since Springtime asked to join the list. She was refused / removed.
The only person to be refused.
We never took any democratic decision to allow such a thing to occur. did we? Who is going to take the responsibility for that? We did talk about removing the druid from the list during the Summer - that's something else. SO at end there are many issues of illegitimate decision making & non democratic behaviour in the indymedia ireland world as it is currently shaped
We ( those who are prepared to work & set up a 2nd or 3rd side will have to deal with all these problems as well. But we're going to start from the very beginning the tabula rasa . Coz Sucking teeth just doesn't work. & then in time we'll have wee little indymedia groups all over Erin.

by Chekov Mon Sep 11, 2006 16:25

iosaf: "How can I explain what I meant at the meeting?"

You can post a proposal to the editorial list as usual with as much explanation as you want. You could also find somebody who agrees with you and who will put forward the position for you. Or you could come up with some other method. Or do you want me to pay for your plane ticket?

chris:

You should know well that our editorial guidelines generally restrict discussion of the guidelines themselves to the lists. Just ignoring this fact and claiming that there is some special censorship going on against you is not at all constructive.

by Another Robot Mon Sep 11, 2006 16:33

Maybe what you see as bullying is merely disagreement. See your own comments below and check out the beam in your own eye.

That's possible. So it'd be really good for people to discuss what constitutes bullying behaviour at the meeting and to come with a way of dealing with it. That way, the individual idiosyncracies of you and me don't get to determine the behaviour that everyone on the list has to put up with.

by chris - the unmans Mon Sep 11, 2006 16:33

The article was about two men taking on two women from the right.
the other was about domestic violence.

I have had people read them-guess what you made up the guidelines, not me.
they breach nothing put 'em up/

by Another Robot Mon Sep 11, 2006 16:34

Discussion of bullying and other disruptive behaviour, especially on the mailing lists, and specific ways to try and remedy this problem.

by Chekov Mon Sep 11, 2006 16:37

Iosaf. I don't believe that this woman was actually blocked from joining the list - if she was it was a very serious infraction by whoever carried it out and I for one would like to get to the bottom of it. Can you come up with evidence / details of her being blocked from joining? You will understand that since you have a long track record of spreading inaccurate smears about indymedia.ie and its editors I won't just take your word for it.

I sent these proposals to the editorial list and I intend to propose them at the meetings:

editorial lists
- people must post an introduction before they are allowed to sign up (they
should say why they are participating but do not have to divulge personal details)
- we will elect a group of moderators - wherever possible these moderators
will not be editors

posting rules
- no personal abuse / threats etc.
- it is a working list, all posts should be directly relevant to editorial /
policy matters
- no more than 3 posts in one day on any particular topic / 5 in total
- posts should be formatted according to standard email list norms (links to relevant posts, identifiable replys, no
top-posting, etc)
- it is the responsibility of posters to ensure that they obey the rules, not the moderators.

list abuse
- moderators will apply first a warning. Second a temporary ban, third a
permanent ban
- new subscribers will be on probation for 2 weeks - can be banned instantly
at discretion of moderators.

editors
- end the 'black ball' system of editorial appointment. Something like the
following: new editors need either:
a) 3 approvals and no objections (as currently)
or
b) approvals from 50% +1 of all editors
- introduce a recall mechanism (using similar criteria as to appointment)
- automatic lapse in editorship after one month of non-activity

wider collective
- introduce some sort of electoral college system to give a voice to groups
of contributors, moderators, real world groups, not-dublin groups, etc...

by pat c Mon Sep 11, 2006 16:38

You are not being very helpful by posting in unpunctuated sentences.

Also, would you please at least give the titles of the hidden articles and the reasons given for hiding them.

by Chekov Mon Sep 11, 2006 16:44

The very first line of the most recent article read as follows:

Today was notable on the newswire for the two sustained attacks on working women politicians, the crucified Harney photographic enhancement seems to have disappeared from the opinion and analysis section.

This alone breaks three guidelines. It refers to a hidden post (guideline 16). It is about editorial actions (guideline 15). And it is a comment on recent articles (guideline 1). You explicitly refered to an article having 'disappeared' and any familiarity with the guidelines would have led you to know that we always remove such content (for very good reason).

Rather than going to the trouble of seeking clarification on the editorial list, you just posted a threat that you were compiling a dossier. You didn't even bother to argue the point that your article was within the guidelines.

by M Cotton Mon Sep 11, 2006 16:49

No, you're wrong there, Chekov. A certain retired editor, who you know I love very dearly, accused me of sexism when I posted the observation about women and tech expertise. He subsequently referred to it as an additional reason for blocking me when I was proposed as an editor for the second time. Nobody challenged him about that on the list -except me of course.

Witth regard to the other point you make - the IMC research has shown this pehnomenon - the 'loyal' woman who comes out of the woodwork to 'proove' that concerns about sexism must be unfounded' is well known and the examples I gave - there were two - were thought to be classic - the way they were expressed and the rationale given at the time plus their failure to examine the facts of what I and others had been put through before riding into the fray.

One of those women has since privately acknowledged that I was right to challenge the sexism. Again, when I expressed the view that these two women had been disloyal (not as politely as that, of course) I was accused of sexism and you have just walked right into that same loop yourself again. The possibility of sexism among the men is completely denied and, incredibly, thrown back on the very woman who was challenging the sexism in the first place. And then, even more incredibly that further allegation of sexism against me was also used an excuse to block me as an editor. It is so stereotypical of what happens, it should be in text books.

Im stunned by what happened to me and other women in a place where I really thought it couldnt happen. Paual G really should be there by now, too. Its hard to go on working with people who you feel have treated you so unfairly.

by dr Mon Sep 11, 2006 16:49

the tech barrier needed to be an editor is just that, it isnt anything to do with your gender.
if being an editor requires you to do html then that is what you need to learn.
there is no barrier to this. if you think there is one then you are just playing into the view that women arent technical. pick up a book and learn it. html tags take about an hour to learn and understand.
you can get any book on html in your local library.
it cant be compared to a company or a corporation position, its a non paying volunteer job.
put in a small bit of effort and help the collective.
learn and educate yourself and help run the website.
people who understand how to make features are needed.
people who can write clearly, coherently, and grammatically correct are needed. their writings generally get turned into features if people can understand them without wondering trying to decipher what a person is trying to say.
(sorry for my lack of punctuation!)
positive contributions are much better than negative ones.

by Truth Mon Sep 11, 2006 16:53

Frankly Chris a lot of your posts and articles should be hidden because they are gibberish. You refuse to use easily understandable punctuation and grammar. You have previously asked for posts to be deleted on the indymedia editorial list on the basis that you were covering a story and somebody had a different opinion then you. Anytime anybody questions or criticises you you call it sexist. You were not in anyway helpfull on the editorial list and your netiquette is terrible.

by Chekov Mon Sep 11, 2006 16:55

"The possibility of sexism among the men is completely denied "

Where?

And can you supply links to substantite your claims about being blocked on these grounds please?

by not PC Mon Sep 11, 2006 16:58

I get the impression there is a campaign in motion to get a particular female on the editorial. I agree with having women properly represented on the editorial but only if they are as balanced and competent as any of the other male editors

However I have to say, reading the comments and posts from this particular woman would-be editor, i question her objectivity and balance and in this particular case I would have to side with the "woman hating" (lovely balanced term!) editor who "blocked her"., just as I'd have reservations about a male editor who was not balanced. That's true equality. It's a double edged sword.

Lets have more women on the indy editorial team, but lets not put the wrong ones in for the sake of "tokenism"

No foaming ("man hating" :) radical feminist one issue people. Just normal sensible women who care about many issues, including the rights of women. There are plenty out there. Stand up and be counted ladies.

by James O'B. Mon Sep 11, 2006 17:00

Iosaf: Now chekov if I suggested "extending the franchise" but not quite in those words - & I am as everyone knows in Barcelona whence I never come to Dublin
How can I explain what I meant at the meeting?

I collated this provisional agenda together and I took the topic of “extending the franchise” from ideas of Seedot and James R not from yourself, as a search through the lists will demonstrate.

Secondly, re blocking of a female editor. In this case one person blocked one nomination and he provided his reasons for it – again it is archived on the lists There was disagreement to be sure and maybe he was wrong, but it is not fair to say that he was alone in his views or without reason. Also, as afaik, that block has been lifted since May. It is worth noting that some men who were proposed as editors were also refused as not fitting the bill at that point. The decisions may have been sexist, but they may also have been fair decisions based on sound reasoning. I’d encourage interested readers to read the publicly available archives before making up their own mind.

by Researcher Mon Sep 11, 2006 17:06

"the IMC research has shown this pehnomenon - the 'loyal' woman who comes out of the woodwork to 'proove' that concerns about sexism must be unfounded' is well known"

Where is this research and what page is this conclusion on? And who are you talkiing about? Who is the woman on the indymedia.ie collective that you talked about in an earlier comment?

by Nurse Mon Sep 11, 2006 17:18

'the tech barrier' ought not to be a barrier at all

that is the whole point

you may not intend it to be discrimination but it is discrimination when you ignore the effect it has on a lot of women (or anyone who aint very technically experienced)

you ignore the substantial contributions made by the women in other ways

this means you are placing techpertise above other forms of committment because that happens to be what you are good at and you think what you do is more important, apparently

it ignores the possibility of different sorts of editor

particiaption should be about the message not the medium, primarily

there is no reason not to train on the 'job' just like most of you did for those who want to learn tech stuff

there is still a lot of useful stuff like troll watching and other housekeeping that can be done

stop citing your volunteer status as a stick with which to beat people who you are at the same time refusing the possibility of helping out on the very things you say you need help with

you cant have it both ways

it may be a lot to ask, but how about writing a self-training module. or perhaps duplicate this site as it is and let learners loose on it (with passwords) so they can experiment with the tech stuff. maybe suggest exercises to do - from simple to less simple - to advanced - to very advanced. let other editors be available to answer specific queries learners might have with these exercises - via the tech list.

these are positive suggestions

most of the positive suggestions this contributor has made have been ignored

by Curious Mon Sep 11, 2006 17:18

Is Chris speaking on behalf of the Unmanageables when she posts on this thread? If not she should leave their name out or put in personal capacity.

by redjade Mon Sep 11, 2006 17:19

Before this discussion gets too out of hand, let me say as one editor among 13, there are NO EDITORS that oppose women from becoming editors.

Absolutely NO ONE has said that women should not be editors
Absolutely NO ONE has blocked anyone from being an editor because they are a woman.
Absolutely NO ONE

What Miriam and Chris M, et al have neglected to mention is that while some women have been rejected or delayed (i hope only delayed) from become editors, there have ALSO BEEN MEN REJECTED AND DELAYED.
[i apologise for my all-caps]

and it is this 'forgetfullness' of Miriam's and Chris M's in 'reporting' their side of the story that is very much at the centre of this current problem.

Yes, there should be women editors.
And there will be - and, unfortunately not soon enough.

by chris - the unmanageables Mon Sep 11, 2006 17:23

Womyn and political structures:- its black and white and red all over

Erica Turgida:- revisiting the spectre of domestic abuse (subtitle)

as to the unmanageables. we all speak for ourselves, we often disagrre, but there is enough repsect there for disparity of opinion. we step back if we do not agree.

it is a collective of women from different groups. not an organisation with rules. they were anti-patriarchial and suppressed. one fleeting ref to indy which other writers do in other organisations, not interpreted aggressively. read yesterdays observor. women all over the world are complaining about political posturing and maschismo.

by Tech Hurdler Mon Sep 11, 2006 17:25

I keep on hearing people talking about the "tech barrier". What is it? It seems that most of the job of being an indymedia editor involves clicking buttons that the people that can script/program created, and being able to express oneself in clear english and to read what other people write.

What is this "tech barrier"?

by c Murray - the unmans Mon Sep 11, 2006 17:55

1. I went with 3 other women to the meeting which raised these issues.
I ststed then and now that a 15 male ed collective was unprecedented.
I am a writer opposed to censorship and discrimination on the basis of
disability. witness the amount of refs to my style or punctuation, am I dsylexic,
dispraxic, disfunctiona;?

I objected to a restructuring editorial interference on a SIB piece,
which re-positioned it from anti-capitalism to rights and freedoms.
I still do.

I am compiling a complaint not a dossier.
it is necessary.

by Chekov Mon Sep 11, 2006 17:56

"Womyn and political structures:- its black and white and red all over"

And the fact that it broke the guidelines is entirely black and white (as detailled above). Why did you simply ignore the explanation that I went to the trouble of writing and simply restate the content-free claim above?

Do you accept that it broke the guidelines?

If so, why do you think that it should have remained?

by Truth Mon Sep 11, 2006 18:05

Chris why don't you type your comments/articles in a word document and then do a spell and grammar check on them. Trying to read your posts is extremely hard, apart from the aggressive paranoid and false stance that you usually take.

by James Mon Sep 11, 2006 18:13

Chris: I objected to a restructuring editorial interference on a SIB piece,
which re-positioned it from anti-capitalism to rights and freedoms.
I still do.

Chris, the article which you are referring to is here: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/76678

As you will see it is still categorised under “anti-capitalism”. It always was, and always will. As was explained to you on the editorial list, you are confusing your article with one on the same topic by Anarchaeologist. It would be helpful if you would follow the link and confirm this for yourself.

Thanks.

Compare and contrast:
Chris Murray’s article on the SIB Bill: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/76678
Anarchaeologist’s article on the SIB Bill: http://indymedia.ie/article/76680

by c murray - the unmans Mon Sep 11, 2006 18:40

yes there is a vast difference in the articles.

but thanks for the link, was looking for it for the Mc Dowell piece.

I have spoken to anarchologist, he understood my anger. at this point am excerising
my right to silence, since free-speech and self-expression do not fir into the rules

btw- have defended other's rights in this. so don't (whomever did) accuse me of falsity.

by robot Mon Sep 11, 2006 18:56

at this point am excerising my right to silence, since free-speech and self-expression do not fir into the rules
And I'm exercising my right to tell you how rude it is to repeatedly bring up points and then to ignore the explanations that you're given for them. Pretty much every specific complaint that you have raised here has been answered and you've just ignored the answers and repeated them and gone back to complaining about free speech.

by pat c Mon Sep 11, 2006 19:04

"btw- have defended other's rights in this. so don't (whomever did) accuse me of falsity."

When you didnt like what I was posting about the Preston case you demanded that my comments be deleted. You didnt give any reasons other than I should start my own story line If I wished to be critical of Prestons assertions.

You were posting comments under a pseudynom in support of Preston at the same time as you were demanding that my comments be deleted. Not evidence of a great committment to free speech on your part.

by Dave Mon Sep 11, 2006 19:05

despite all the irrelevant points made by Miriam and Chris M regarding a non - existing sexist policy, i wonder do either of you read subsequent posts to your questions, as they have been answered or are ye so convinced of your own opinions that responses/answers to your questions dont matter?

anyway... my point is this, and i have wanted to say it for ages, but never found the relevant context: Chris M , your posts are rehashed copy and pastes that indicate you are more concerned about shouting out what you think as soon as you feel it as opposed to thinking and independently writing an article, they are often so rushed together that no one can decipher them. These ought to be deleted to a sin bin and are not sufficent for the newswire. I do not mean to be a snob about this, and i do not intend to offend you, but its true.

by NO ONE Mon Sep 11, 2006 19:12

Sexism is not established by searching only for evidence of crude sexism such as 'NO WOMAN MAY BE AND EDITOR', straightforward an example though that would be.

I dont believe that you are naive enough not to know that sexism operates, most often, more subtly than that.

It is not for you to declare, absolutely, that no woman has been made an editor because she is a woman. OF COURSE nobody has said 'well you gotta fanny, kid, so there's no way you're gonna be allowed to do this'.

The difference in treatment is evident in the ATTITUDES, THE DISCRIMINATORY STANDARDS and LOTS OF OTHER examples of how this shit plays out. OK? And the evidence with Irish IMC is CLASSIC sexism.

This thread is also clear cut evidence of what is going on, in fact.

by robot Mon Sep 11, 2006 19:20

And I did not write the response to Chris above. I do agree with it though. Robots should display courtesy towards each other by using the URINs (Unique Robot Identification Numbers). I am #1. Thank you.

by wageslave Mon Sep 11, 2006 19:34

Just because you are female does not mean you cannot be daft too.

Resorting to the sexism argument when anyone criticises the content of your post inevitably loses you respect..

Ladies, Don't do that. Gather good evidence and reply coherently and people will see the merit of your arguments.

As a man, nothing makes me respect a woman more than when she stands her ground and fights fair in a discussion without playing the sexism card or the waterworks card.

I have no respect for manipulative women who play both cards whenever it furthers their ends.

by real wageslave Mon Sep 11, 2006 19:52

dont come on here, wageslave, pretending to be a friend of feminists and anti-sexism while at the same time showing complete disregard for all the evidence that has been given here already. if you are concerned to understand what this is about - join the editorial list and read the archives, carefully, over the last 18 months at least. some of us are concerened not to air all of the dirty laundry in public because we respect the objectives of this newswire too much to do that.

and just so you know, feminists intensely dislike the expression 'ladies' - riddled with sexist, classist and racist connotations as it is.

by wageslave Mon Sep 11, 2006 20:23

I don't see much evidence of that here but I did see chris ignoring polite requests for evidence to back up her argument, until in frustration, someone (rightly or wrongly) called a spade a spade.

I apologise for using the epithet "ladies" if it is offensive.

I have joined the editorial list. IMHO Daft men seem to get the same ruthless treatment for dodgy posts as women. (I have gotten it myself!)

I AM in favour of equality on the basis of merit but I am dubious of too much positive discrimination. We are not all enemies of women y'know. I would really like to see 50/50 men / women on the editorial but only if it arrives that way on merit, not tokenism.

Having met many confident, competent and inspiring women in my time, I have every confidence that this is a goal that can be easily attained if women get their act together.

There obviously needs to be a proper discussion in meatspace on this issue and the ways indy could become more encouraging to women but women also need to earn the right to be editors by proving themselves balanced and competent. This shouldn't be too difficult providing the selection procedure is fair. This is the reason I tried to suggest a method which was largely independent of human bias

by myself Mon Sep 11, 2006 22:20

Oh my.
There's a really good article here about accusing people (in this case it's about race) of "playing the race card". http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=10157
I think you should think carefully before assuming women's complaints are ungrounded and they are just playing a card. Trying to silence people by throwing around accusations like that is not cool.

It's not about women having to prove themselves competent and balanced. No one is or can claim to be objective.
Of course they have to be a good editor, but what makes a good editor? There are certain traits which are considered important in this context, being a techie, etc. and these are not the be all and end all. What it seems to me the women here are saying is that there are other traits, ones which women are more likely to have, such as knowledge and understanding of certain areas, which are not valued by the indymedia editorial team.
Women may not have the same amount of time to spend at the computer as men do because unfortunately, women do most of the care work and house work. That desn't mean that we have nothing to contribute.

There's lots of weird comments going on here about feminists and I find it really offensive. What's so wrong with thinking women are just as good as men? We are.

by redjade - speaking as one indy .ie editor Mon Sep 11, 2006 22:35

'Of course they have to be a good editor, but what makes a good editor?'

Thank you! Someone gets the essential point! :-)

And this is what the editorial list has been discussing (or trying to discuss) for quite sometime now - unfortunately the discussion gets sidetracked by the issue of what is between people's legs instead of what is between their ears.

If you, or anyone else reading this, wishes to discuss this question: but what makes a good editor?
please join the publically accessible, freely joinable indymedia editorial list:
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-ireland...orial

by green immigrant Mon Sep 11, 2006 23:41

hi
well i might not be in Ireland and be able to come to the meeting in Dublin , i will move to Ireland soon ( jan 2007) and always thought i could somehow make a contribution to IMC-ireland. Untill today , reading all those comments of all those people somehow close connected to the editors or editor themself , i realise it's not just the trolls making it a sad reading. i have no clue about the ins and outs of the IMC-ireland and although i was i am no longer interested , i will still read the articles and yes they inform but telling me this: We want original comments that add information, or argue a point of view not re-heated bar-stool cliches. and doing the above......
p.s currently living in Sweden where AFA has hijacked the IMC , also not ideal.
enjoy the soup !

by James R Tue Sep 12, 2006 00:34

an independent minutes taker and an agreed women's grassroot mediator.

Why grassroots? Why are you fixated on Indymedia as some sort of activistymedia.ie? Indymedia is not meant to be tied to any of the niches within the Irish social movement, this argument for a grassroots woman mediator has as much validity in my eye as someone calling for a SP/SWP female mediator.

the continous blocking of proposed female editors and strategies for dealing with harassment/abuse.

So tokenism is your answer? As it stands the site needs a mechenism to rid itself of editors who are not acting in their editorial role. One of the most valuable discussions to occur next weekend in my opinion is the clarifaction of what exactly it means to be an editor. Paul Baynes has done some work on this. Personally from my experience of being an editor it involves laying out features and editing the newswire. Unfortunately some people accredit editorial status with being in some sort of awarded clique, this is wrong and it largely has led to the sort of squabbles we have seen develop on the list. There should be a set critera outlining what editors do, those that wish to become editors and help the project should amply demonstrate a capability for the work. At the minute this can be done by engaging in constructive editorial discussion, doing up html for features, hitting the abusive post button and pointing out things that need editing. I think engaging in this sort of contribution to the site is an absolute preresequite to becoming an editor. How else do you think editors should emerge? Given the acrimonious abuse many of us are subjected to on the editorial list, yes I would think harassment and abuse of the lists will be discussed at the meeting.

As it happens, the meetings are all arranged exclusively to suit the people living in Dublin, with short enough notice for those who have to make child care arrangements and stay away over night in order to attend. How many on the collective (approved/not approved/rejected) are from outside Dublin?

This was on the lists for months as the other James has pointed out above. But don't let fact stand in the way of a good auld dig.

Just to clarify, the topic that has been added to indymedia. ie is called "gender and sexuality". While this is a welcome addition it must be recognised that although it may be some what related it is clearly different to the much needed topic on feminism/womens rights/anti-patriarchy.

Is it much needed? There was a long discussion on the list about this, gender and sexuality was the topic decided upon through a process of consensus. Feminism is a political/social ideology, if we have a feminism topic then should we have an anarchism/socialist topic? I have no idea why people think that if there is a topic addressing their particular concerns why they think that will lead to more content on that topic. As it stands the gender and sexuality topic is currently under utilised, what would be the point in splitting its content across multiple other topics? Gender and Sexuality is a topic title that deals with the gamuat of discussions that occur around patriarchy, liberation from set gender roles, sexism and advancing equal rights. These topics should be broad because the readersip of the site is broad and the way these discussions take place is broad. With that in mind how is your suggestion 'clearly different' to the existing category?

but maybe outreach and setting up local eds, rural eds and of course tech collaboration/outreach for womyn.

Chris, you do realise Indy is ran by volunteers who hold down jobs and lives yeah? Aside from your persistent patronising of female Indymedia users in advocating that the editors need to develop some sort of special relationship with them to protect them and encourage them along in their battles with nasty technology. Aside from your own reactionary view that women are inherantly technophobic, you should realise that as things stand there are very few people involved in the running of this site. These people do what they can, you seem to think we do this as a 24/7 task, while some may come close it is not the case. As it stands people do not have the time to be running the sort of regular educationals you seem so keen on. This isn't a conspiracy, it is the consequence of living busy lives. Have you tried reading any of the site's documentation on how to use the site? Have you ever looked at one of the zillion online html tutorials? I'd suggest these as a first step to anyone looking to develop their technical understanding of the site.

Sure it's open publishing but the lists system is very clunky, frustrating and unsatifsctory. The fact is, other indys don't censor and things work out ok for them.

Yeah, maybe so. But to be honest I feel as if my brain is being raped looking at some of the other Indys. The way persistent spammers can drag the overall quality of the site down is extraordinary. We barely get a taste of this here with contributers putting up their own original gobbledeegook that escapes editorial guidelines. If there was a 'playpen' area for these postings, I'd hope it would be well out of the view of the public as first impressions formed of Indymedia can be the key to wider involvement. Do we take ourselves seriously as a news outlet or do we allow misreadings of the open-publishing philosophy to cripple us by giving free reign to human spam bots and incoherant ranters?

A simple BBS system ( with logging )would be so much faster and more accessible. Even in parallell with the current system, it would be a good thing.

I totally agree. I'm sick of trying to do work on the editorial lists and I really think other editors are as well. There has been an obvious drop of in discussions and contributions. Quality proposals and the concerete work of the editorial collective is so often swamped by abusive post notifacitons and worse again paranoid little squabbles from those egos that shout the loudest. I'd prefer utilising the Oscailt code to create another backend to the site where editorial work can take place in a threaded format. It basically means if you want to do work you can gravitate to the threads where it takes place and ignore the persistent email spam from the egotistical nutters that get attracted to the site. It would also make the site more transparent by allowing easier public access to archvied discussions thus limiting the ability of some to construct discussion histories to suit their own viewpoint.

don't understand what is meant by "extending the indymedia franchise" Chekov.

Well this is an obvious one Iosaf. Surprising the way those who are making the wildest claims about lack of transparency also make remarks with the most insipid disregard for democractic discussions. As someone on the editoral list Iosaf, you should be well aware of a suggestion put forward by another editor back around March or April outlining a mechenism for creating distinct editorial and contributers groups with voting rights on the project, as well as another layer of democracy where public meetings are called, where those who have contributed as commentators and readers can register themselves in advance for votes at a public meeting.

Calling youself "sofia" like i do is not enough. Those who run the women's list are already a bit concerned at irish indymedia users - & irish men pretending to be women - so don't abuse their global space. Ireland has already attracted a bit of attention-

So the inhabitants on this list are concerned at Irish men pretending to be female to gain access to their autonomous discussions? Yet the only person to do this is you and you admit it Iosaf? This is pure comedy at this stage.

a suggestion I made in April on the lists that we ask people to introduce themselves on our lists. The adminstrator said he doubted such a usual indymedia practise would suit indymedia ireland users.

Do you want my social welfare number as well Iosaf? Why in gods name would people running a website that presents a significant torn to the state when it is at its best want to expose themselves for repurcussions for this work? Who are you anyway? Whats your obession with the personal background of IMC contributers? I think that as Chekov has suggested there should be some intorduction from new people on a list, but the problems you have raised with the use of handles on the list has no merit in my opinion.

Following that indymedia "netiquette" an editor of Barcelona indymedia who is spending increasing time in Dublin and has been making contact with political groups in Ireland since Springtime asked to join the list. She was refused / removed.

Eh, a nice little tale there. I actually met this person once on the back of your emails to the list. As far as I know she is on the editorial list, she sent in an email greeting and was cordially welcomed. Wheter or not she is still on the lists is beyond me. I've yet to hear anything from her other than this greeting on the lists. Swamped as we are with work, her contributions to the lists are more than welcome. Is it not a bit cynical of you to use other people as battering rams in your own little internet wars to be fair Iosaf, its landed other people on the list in trouble before. Don't worry the irony of your brave and chivilarious stand is not lost on some of us.

I have had people read them-guess what you made up the guidelines, not me. they breach nothing put 'em up

Chris, I have yet to see you proving yourself capable of working with other people in virtual space, so it is absolutely no surprise to me that you think guidelines agreed over years should be thrown out the window when it comes to you.

at this point am excerising my right to silence, since free-speech and self-expression do not fir into the rules

Again Chris your approach to Indymedia reminds me of a piece of graffitti I came across once 'its not anarchy unless a punk can shit in your face.' In your view its not indymedia until you can subject us all to your crap regardless of the guidelines.

I have spoken to anarchologist, he understood my anger.

That little spate of yours with anarchologist truly was bizarre, for all intents and purposes you were objecting to the fact that he covered something you wrote on first. This odd behaviour was replicated when somebody else commented on a piece you wrote about a referendum on the statutory rape laws. From where I'm sitting Chris it appears to me like you see Indymedia as your own personal little fiefdom, where you position yourself as an expert commenter on a set of topics and react negatively when anyone else uses the peer review comment function to argue any different. This is completely out of sorts with the spirits of the IMC project. Have you ever considered blogging? There'll be no one to tamper with your postings on your own blog.

Worse again as referred to by someone above is the repeated abusive comment postings you have sent into the lists alledging your material and comments have been edited by someone abusing editorial rights. In my brief time involved in the IMC project I have to say that this is the lowest form of abuse and manipulation yet on the lists. It would be easy for you to verify these claims by referring to the editorial notifactions that archive all such actions. When it was pointed out that no such action happened, and hence no such editorial notifaction for it exists you refused to offer an apology or withdraw your allegations.

What's so wrong with thinking women are just as good as men? We are.

Absolutely nothing is wrong with this view. But why do you insist on painting the whole Indymedia collective as holding this view?

by wageslave Tue Sep 12, 2006 00:40

First of all, stop insulting me. I'm on your side.
I am not trying to silence you. we are having a discussion from which hopefully we will both benefit.
I will research the matter further but what has happened on this particular thread IMHO is not that terribly sexist.

The technical know how argument is largely nonsense and IS ungrounded IMHO. No great technical expertise is required for the job.

of course nobody is completely objective but some people have a certain clarity of thought and tend to distort reality a lot less than others

My idea of what makes a good editor is that they are balanced and competent. that's why i used that phrase.
by balanced, I mean they can see both sides of an argument without too much bias and that they don't let their personal convictions on certain topics cloud their judgement too much. Not unreasonable
By competent, i mean that they can express their ideas clearly , have good comprehenshion and communication skills, a certain clarity of thought and can use a computer. I'm not talking any great tech skills here, just basic computer literacy and the basic intelligence and willingness to learn.
I would apply exactly the same criteria to males and females in this regard If I were choosing an editor.

A vast knowledge of activist topics is a plus but a competent, person will learn about the topics as they read posts, edit stuff and chat with people on the lists. Indy is a good resource for learning

The fact that some women don't have as much time as men to spend at the computer because they do housework is a dubious argument at best, not least because to be an indy editor does not require much computer knowledge anyway.

I will make the obvious point that if you are really THAT busy then you probably don't have time to be an editor on indy either. If you have the time to be an indy editor then you probably have the time to learn basic computer literacy. (it's not a big deal)

Look, I want what you want but i just hate people pulling cards like sexism or anti-semitism when its not fair to do so. I don't respect that kind of thing.Perhaps you have experienced sexism on indy but I don't see as much of it as you say on this particular thread. I see people being vague and offering unsubstantiated arguments and other people afraid to challenge them for fear of being labelled sexist.
I'm in favour of more women and fairer elections and engage you as an equal here and all you do is point me to an article and imply that I'm a sexist. and act all offended by everything. Thats manipulative in my book. Tell me, how do you treat true sexists who hold women in actual contempt.? How do you differentiate between them and people like me ?

The fact is you have only one word for both of us. sexist. It's a bit like the little boy who cried wolf.

If you want things to change at indy, you will be glad of the support of sympathetic males like myself so don't go alienating us by lumping us in with dyed in the wool misogynists under the all encompassing term SEXIST.at the drop of a hat.

by no bolloxs Tue Sep 12, 2006 02:51

"The tech barrier needed to be an editor is just that, it isnt anything to do with your gender,if being
an editor requires you to do html then that is what you need to learn."

Yet i know males who became ed`s without any HTML skills at all.

by Unperson Tue Sep 12, 2006 03:15

There is no tech barrier. Anyone halfway serious can learn to script basic HTML, work a web-browser, follow netiquette, work with other people. The idea that women can't do tech and are inherently worse/better than men is sexist crap and the people advancing that idea are mostly the ones that claim to be excluded somehow. This is like a fucking Breughels nightmare with people walking around with giant sex organs where their heads should be.

breughel (c) someone at http://www.wsu.edu/~delahoyd/gret.jpg

by Dollard Tue Sep 12, 2006 03:20

That above post is not making a point at all. From reading the thread it seems the people running the site are trying to define the editorial role. From reading the above its also apparent there's a group of people insisting on not going along with this and sticking to the ways of the past. Whats the value of the site taking on editors with no HTML experience or willingness to spend a few hours familiarising themselves with it? Some of you seem too happy to continue with dodgy past precedents as long as you get your own way through them.

by M Cotton Tue Sep 12, 2006 07:01

I have NOT said that women are naturally technophobic or innately less able for technical work. What I have said is that because of sexism in the way we were/are educated and socialised many of us have been directed away from this sort of area of work and experience. A phobia or worry about it has been induced in lots of women this way. Science and technology were not even on the curriculum of many girls schools when I was growing up. There are thousands of women around IMC for whom this is not the case and who can hold their own perfectly well, being just as able as any man - given the chance and inclination. Also many women with children simply do not have the time to spend experimenting with computers to bring themselves up to the same level of expertise as many more men have. This has been a big issue for women all over the world where IMC is concerned. It is not just me saying it, and it is not sexist for me to point out the reality that many women are faced with, including myself. I find some of the attitudeds shown here extraordinarly mean and unkind. Some of you say how simple it is to learn how to do some of this stuff, but I dont find it so, for one. On the other hand, I do a lot of writing for Indymedia, and without the writing and visual contributions your technical expertise is pointless. Nobody is forcing you to define the editorial role as exclusively or even predominently technical. You are doing that yourselves and making unnecessary difficulty by not being more inclusive. I used to help out a lot on the editorial side with abusive posts/trolling until I was more or less told get lost, that I wasn't a very nice person, nor well behaved enough (I had opinions) to have in what turns out to be your club.

It is thoroughly disingenous for those who have been approved as editors to try to make out that you dont have control over what is happening on this site, that its all just incidental donkey work. If its no big deal then why are you so afraid of opening the role up to other people?

You decied what gets hidden and you alone
You decide what is made into a feature
You decide what categories may or may not be included
You decide what gets featurised
You have far more control over the work of contributors than the contributors themselves

That is a substantial power base and you are all men

Im off now to write up a news report. It's 5.30am, the time of day in which I mainly have to do my writing because the kids will be awake by 7.00. I have to get a million chores and other stuff done during school hours plus occasional employment. That short window finishes at 2.30 when I have to go and collect the kids and its generally all over after that with homework, meals,therapy for my son and other stuff until they go to bed. The voluntary/activist work I do is also a big draw on my time - mornings or nights and weekends. I have no time to do what you are insisting I must do with tech stuff. If I give more time to it, our homelife suffers, it has suffered enough since discovering Indymedia anyway. Do you have any idea the effort that has been involved in submitting the contributions I have? You discriminate against women on the de facto grounds of the realities of our lives. There are laws against doing that in the 'real' world - amazing that Indymedia.ie should be trailing behind even the inadequate legislation in its operation.

by barra Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:05

Under this topic I think it would be a good idea to discuss ways of getting more indymedia contributors from around the country and giving the site more of a national perspective.

Potential ways of doing this:

Contacting small local papers to and explain by e-mail the benefits of indymedia and how it could help local issues they are concerned about.

As editors might be too busy too do this work maybe an e-mail list could be set up of people willing to contact local papers.

by myself Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:47

Look, the point of the article was not to say that you are sexist and therefore a bad person, it was about accusing people of playing cards, of dismissing their arguments in one sweep and not looking at any real issues that might lie underneath,
I wasn’t trying to insult you.
I think the tone of your response is way over the top.
You explain to me then why indymedia is all men. Tell me it is just coincidence.
Try and tell me this has no impact on how the site operates.

Women do more carework and housework then men. Are you really arguing that they don’t? Women do have less time on their hands. I would direct you to an article or two but you don’t seem to like that and I hate when people do that to me about political theory so…

In my experience sexism still prevails among the most 'enlightened' people (whatever the gender) and by pretending it doesn't exist you do no one any favours.
No one is asking you to feel guilty or saying you’re a big bad sexist man, It's about taking this seriously and looking at ways to change things without lashing out at individuals.
I'm just saying that dismissing women who try and point out sexism as 'playing a card' is not constructive.
Women and men need to work together to combat sexism. It does need to be taken seriously even if it is found in places you don’t want to see it like in indymedia. The attacks on chris and m.cotton on this thread are pretty shocking in my eyes, regardless of their gender, but especially because they seem to be the ones criticizing the way things are around here.

Good luck with the meeting and I hope it goes well, I'm really happy to see all this being discussed and I hope it can move from personal bickering to constructive debate.

by reader Tue Sep 12, 2006 12:02

Some people have the stereotypical chip on the shoulder,

someone was blocked for having a disagreement with an editor not for being a woman.

And paula g should be editor Chris says, I would suggest paula g as a editor tomorrow, definitly for her high quality photos reports. but I never ever got the slightest impression she wanted to be an editor. This is a perfect example of the situation with women and Imc ireland.

Well chris

by Rose - unwilling Tue Sep 12, 2006 12:05

The above thread with this link:

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/76486

by Chris - the unmanageables Tue Sep 12, 2006 12:13

I most certainly would not speak for her, she is her own woman.

re-read the thread, please. it was not I who named Paula G.

I only speak from my experience also-which all the unmanageables do.

I stated for de record and I will say it again.

It is unprecedented to have no female editors.
Two of my articles were suppressed.
One should have been left alone, but was embedded in another writers piece
under a different category.
there are no transparent methods for dealing with harassment /abuse in indy.ie
issues of complaint are reacted to and having re-read the thread completely this morning
I have questions about a rigmarole which is couched as a reply by one editor.

These I will not address to the collective but to a mediator.

by chris Tue Sep 12, 2006 12:15

so remove the response or replace the question. it makes sense.

by Truth Tue Sep 12, 2006 12:34

Yet again Chris you make a completely false allegation. The comment was not removed and it is still there. Not only that you did not bother to check it up first, you just threw out a completely false allegation. You are nothing more than a burden to indymedia users and subscribers to the editorial list.

by Rose Tue Sep 12, 2006 12:47

which truth has not.

by redjade Tue Sep 12, 2006 12:52

'It is unprecedented to have no female editors.'
unprecedented where? I believe there have been other IMCs in this same situation - and this IMC (I believe) will solve this too in time - yes, I agree that this should have been solved a long time ago.

There is much debate about what criteria there should be for someone to become editor - by the way, you have yet to acknowledge the fact that two men have also been rejected/delayed as well. But there's no reason for you to mention the whole truth when it does not suit you needs.

'Two of my articles were suppressed.'
one more time.... Chris, please read the reasons spelled out to you at
http://indymedia.ie/article/78329#comment166564
Those posts violated the editorial guidelines [ http://indymedia.ie/editorial ]
either these guidelines 1) apply to everyone, or 2) special exceptions be made just for you, or 3) you should make specific proposals for amending the editorial guidelines.

Which should it be?

'One should have been left alone, but was embedded in another writers piece under a different category.'
What Chris here is referring to (I think) is that an article she wrote was included in a feature by linking to it. A blatant example of patriarchal behaviour if there ever was one! [embedded=linking to her article]

'there are no transparent methods for dealing with harassment /abuse in indy.ie'

Chris, you know this is not true, because you have, at times, belonged to the editorial list - that's where the work takes place, that's where concerns are addressed, and you send an email to it almost daily - the list's archives are also public and transparent. You know this is a fact - why do you say otherwise?

editorial list - open to all to join:
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-ireland...orial

'issues of complaint are reacted to and having re-read the thread completely this morning I have questions about a rigmarole which is couched as a reply by one editor. These I will not address to the collective but to a mediator.'

ok fine.

by Andrew - WSM - personal capacity Tue Sep 12, 2006 12:58

Well first off I think this thread itself shows why the existing collective may well think some people were not suitable for holding editorial power. Its pretty obvious that the ability to understand and be held to a collectively agreed editorial document would be vital. Likewise a record of accurate interpretation of facts in relation to what happens on the site. Someone who refused both of these could obviously do a lot of damage if they had editorial power.

That said I am quite worried about the technical issue as it is discussed. There are two observable facts here
1. Indymedia.ie has a problem in terms of the gendar composition of the editorial group. This in turn is almost certain to have some impact on some decisions related to gendar including the question of what sub topics are needed.
2. In general there are a lot more male tech geeks around then female ones - particularly when you consider the self taught rather than doing it just for a living type. So a tech requirement is going to make a further impact on the gender ratio of suitable editors. If your ratio is starting at 13:0 this is going to be bad news.

The existing collective which is overworked and often has to deal with users too lazy to read the guidelines provided or who expect all sort of services is perhaps understandably reluctant to respond to the tech question with more than 'it is not difficult to learn this stuff'. While this statement is true indymedia.ie has a problem and the statement tends towards washing your hands of one probable cause of this problem. Also if you don't know how to do HTML already it is not clear either what 'not difficult' means (will it take an hour, a month, a year?). Nor where you would start such a process. Easons sell 500 page HTML manuals, would I need to work through that may not be an unreasonable thought.

A partial solution would be to produce a simple document outlining how to make a feature (the main tech issue I think). I did something similar for Anarkismo.net (which also runs off oscalt). Using this someone can learn what they need to in less than an hour - and if someone wants to be an editor this seems like a reasonable 'proof' of willingness to put some effort into what is required. The tech requirement for becoming an editor could then be reduced to a very simple test of use this document to produce a sample feature for the site. This would also be a very transparent tech tech test Disclaimer: It may be this already exists I am unaware of it

BTW a useful background article on the issue is 'Men are from Earth, and So are Women' at http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=3708

by James O'B. Tue Sep 12, 2006 13:02

Chris: Two of my articles were suppressed.
One should have been left alone, but was embedded in another writers piece
under a different category.

Hi Chris, it’s very difficult to know what articles you are talking about when you don’t give the specific names of articles or url addresses from the notification list.

In this case I think you are referring to your SIB article, which is here: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/76678

I find it difficult to understand your point, but it sounds like you think that your article on the SIB Bill was “embedded” into Anarchaeologist’s article on the SIB Bill. It wasn’t, unless you include linking to an article as embedding (and therefore a bad thing).

As I said above in this thread, your article is completely different to Anarchaeologist’s. He wrote a completely new article. It has nothing to do with yours, other than it covers the same subject matter. Your article is not embedded in any meaningful sense in his article. Your article remains unmoved, unedited, and in its original state and category. Nothing has happened to it.

I hope this is clear.
Thanks.

by Chekov Tue Sep 12, 2006 13:36

Miriam once again completely rewrites history in her account of her departure from editorial discussions. She left voluntarily after the latest in a long line of personalised attacks on list contributors - in this case it was a woman who was the target of her abuse, but pretty much everybody who has ever disagreed with her has been the target of lengthy and bitter missives. It's all in the public record. Incidentally, a percursory count of posting frequency and volumes will also put to bed the wrong-headed notion that she was at a disadvantage when it came to time to spend on the lists. In the various disputes which she was involved in she posted much more frequently than anybody else and in the latest version I recall that she posted more often, and at greater length than the entire rest of the contributors combined. I personally gave up contributing to that dispute due to the fact that I didn't have time to read all the posts, never mind respond.

There is a vast store of documentation about tech matters, laboriously put together by me and others at: http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Local/IndymediaIreland

It includes a detailed description of how to make a feature: http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Local/IMCEireFeatures

Miriam's falling out with pretty much all of the editors had nothing to do with tech matters. Although, several people did previously express frustration with her propensity to ask technical questions on the list rather than either:
a) typing the question into google / wikipedia
b) looking up the answer from the last time that she asked the question and an editor took the trouble to respond.
c) looking up the documentation.

As far as I know none of the people who have complained about tech barriers have bothered to read the documentation.

Incidentally, the flagrant abuse of iosaf, chris, miriam and others on the list is one of the major reasons that several indymedia editors have become burnt out recently. Over the last year we have been spending an increasing amount of our time in trying to dampen down flame wars and ridiculous disputes. This is one of the reasons that I am proposing strict guidelines for the running of the lists.

The problem of a lack of female involvement in indymedia is another matter and in my opinion is not at all related to any of the issues with chris or miriam. If they were both male, haemaphrodites or aliens the problems would be exactly the same. As this thread exhibits extremely well, chris is unwilling or incapable of listening to anybody's explanations and persists in repeating untruths and paranoid fantasies about people doctoring her work. The fact that miriam has also clashed bitterly with the only two other female contributors to the editorial list, as well as having fallen out with various real world (female) campaigners, illustrates the fact that her problems are not down to her gender. However, her capacity for rewriting history and completely and consistently ignoring requests for evidence means that it requires a long and painful trawl through the lists in order to understand just how disruptive and abusive she has been. I invite anybody to engage in such a trawl and to form their own conclusions.

Still, I do accept that I could be blinded by my gender. I invite anybody and everybody to put forward practical solutions to increasing the involvement of females in indymedia. I have repeatedly made such requests on the lists but nobody has even tried to come up with practical solutions. Finally, I should note that any proposed solutions will not work if they require people to accept bullying and abusive behaviour from certain people based upon their gender.

by chris - dear chekov Tue Sep 12, 2006 13:45

1. An independent minutes taker.
2.A mediator. Grass-roots or not, with experience in gender issues.
3. Strategies for dealing with serious complaints of bullying/harassment.
This is about initial reaction to a complaint, which has happened recently, and I am asked not
to speak for that woman.
4. A meeting wherein everyone is welocme (incl, child friendly)

scroll up to the first two comments please.

by Andrew Tue Sep 12, 2006 13:45

Yeah the document at http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Local/IMCEireFeatures does seem to be what I was suggesting, just as well I included the disclaimer!

by Madam K Tue Sep 12, 2006 14:55

"The idea that women can't do tech and are inherently worse/better than men is sexist crap... " Exactly i couldn`t agree more.
... and the people advancing that idea are mostly the ones that claim to be excluded somehow." Hold on a mo !

I dont know if your were at the indy meeting at the lord Ed ,i was and i recall a fun and lively debate with two individuals being put forward as Ed`s ,they were blocked and the question of their HTML skills were cited as a reason amounst others . I belive the point no bolloxs was making was this has not been an obsticule in the past for those HTML illiterate to become editors.A few on the night had no problem admitting that this was the case. Also it was stated that there are only about 15 tags that would be needed to write a feature and Anthony kindly said he would facilitate those wishing to learn more. (Maybe minutes of that meeting would help )

Now i dont care if you are male, female or a spanish hermaphrodite... woops intersexed one rule should apply to all.

It was stated that editors were chosen on "merit " There also needs to be a system to expell those found to be in abuse of the ideals of indymedia...

"IMC Network is a network of collectively run media outlets for the creation of radical, accurate, and passionate tellings of the truth. We work out of a love and inspiration for people who continue to work for a better world"

Madam K

by pat c Tue Sep 12, 2006 14:55

"And paula g should be editor Chris says, I would suggest paula g as a editor tomorrow, definitly for her high quality photos reports. but I never ever got the slightest impression she wanted to be an editor. This is a perfect example of the situation with women and Imc ireland. "

Thats not correct. Paula did want to be an editor. One male editor blocked her. This editor had only just been appointed and he immediately threw his weight around and dragged the ladder up after him.

by redjade - dear chris Tue Sep 12, 2006 15:00

'An independent minutes taker'
The upcoming meeting will be open to the public - I doubt anyone would object if you or your 'independent minutes taker' takes notes.

simple solution: bring your 'independent minutes taker' to the meeting.

you are going to the meeting, right?

by Miriam Cotton Tue Sep 12, 2006 15:05

The anger of your last post and its character assassination on me and Chris does you no favours here. You are tone deaf to what we are saying. I have on many occasions readily accepted decisions and outcomes on Indymedia in good faith and in good humour. I have no idea who on earth you are talking about in reference to other female campaigners - you know something about me that I do not know about myself. What on earth are you talking about? I am not aware of having fallen out with any of the Indymedia editors personally bar two of the 15 men concerned - both of whom were extraordinarily abusive and rude in their responses to me. Chris has actually been told to 'shut up'. I have certainly expressed my frustration with some of the men's opinions on this issue (sexism) but it was never a matter of personal dislike for me. And they say women are the ones who get personal and emotional! For what its worth, I very much like most of the men on the editorial list although I have realised that good will is not reciprocated. As for one-sidedness, I would welcome any newcomer here going over the archives - they will find angry emails from me, certainly, but they will be hard pressed to find the fairness which I was arguing for where women are concerned. In so far as I have shown some of these exchanges to others already, that has certainly been the case. You are so much more ready to be angry, dismissive and judgmental with us. And whether you see it or not it stands out to others very clearly.

You ridicule my lack of expertise and yet scorn the fact of my having asked questions about tecnical issues in an attempt to improve my knowledge of those matters. I cant win. Damned if I do and damned if I dont. What you are now implying on top of everything else, is that not only must we aquire the knowledge you want to see but we must do it in an approved way that doesnt cause you a nuisance. And you clearly do regard inexperienced women as a nuisance in this respect. The website has a clear invitation to 'get involved'. That's what I did and I meant well in doing so, delighted by the Indymedia.ie initiative as I was. But that wasnt good enough. You are being truly horrible.

I have had a number of messages of support for the attempt I made to challenge the sexism on this site - none of those people felt they could do it on the list itself however. Why is that Chekov? What do you suppose they were anxious about? The sort of attack that you have just made on me here, perhaps?

I am deeply offended by what you have written.

by pat c Tue Sep 12, 2006 15:10

regarding an independent woman mediator i would suggest you approach SIPTU or ICTU. they are certainly used to dealing with these sort of situations in the trade union movement where there are sexist structures or where structures are perceived to be sexist.

by Chekov Tue Sep 12, 2006 15:16

It was stated that editors were chosen on "merit " There also needs to be a system to expell those found to be in abuse of the ideals of indymedia...

First of all, thanks for being constructive. If you look above, I've included that in one of my proposals

" - introduce a recall mechanism (using similar criteria as to appointment)
- automatic lapse in editorship after one month of non-activity"

I welcome any comments, disagreements or suggestions on this or any alternative suggestions.

When it comes down to it, the problem of editorial privileges boils down to the fact that we have a seriously unwieldy decision making mechanism which essentially gives each editor a 'black ball' ability to block any and all collective agreements. This means, in practice that it is impossible to remove editors and that we have to be very, very sure that all editors will operate in a collectively constructive manner before election - because if they are not willing or capable of keeping to our collective agreements they would have the ability to completely block all work.

I've been highlighting this problem for a long time now, long before any woman put herself forward as an editor (and indeed more men than women have been blocked as a result). However, hopefully now that things have descended to a low point we have the impetus to agree some much needed reforms.

My thinking is that as long as there is a reaonsably efficient and practical way to remove editors who don't respect the collective agreement, then people should be much less wary about accepting new members. I also support the general idea of "extending the franchise" to give more people a say in policy matters without them having to have editorial passwords or technical skills. Many general policy issues are only tangentially related to their technical implementations and there's no reason that people without technical skills shouldn't have a say in them (if, of course, they are committed to the indymedia goals). However, the practical matter of implementing this in a workable way is not a trivial problem.

However, all of this depends upon us finding people who are willing and able to carry out the list moderation functions as one of our biggest problems has been keeping track of discussions, collating decisions etc in a situation where various people wantonly and repeatedly ignore all the standard rules for interacting on email lists.

So, if anybody is reading this who is interested in getting involved in the running of indymedia, there is a pressing need for your volunteer services (that is as long as your head hasn't exploded after reading through this thread).

by A Little Bird Tue Sep 12, 2006 15:22

"they were blocked and the question of their HTML skills were cited as a reason amounst others"

I hear a different story. And the one I hear seems to be based in reality. The first interesting part is that the indy meeting that you talk about had no decision making power and this was explained at the meeting. So it sounds like youre not telling the truth.

So if there was no decision making power of this meeting then no one can have been blocked at the meeting.

Another thing I hear is that one of the people proposed as an editor had no history of editorial activity. The other person did not say why she wanted to be an editor or if she did want to be an editor or what she thought an editor did.

I also hear as a final point that it was suggested that anyone that wanted to be an editor should obtain training from Anthony in how to make a feature and all that and to spend some time partaking in the identifying of editorial problems on the list.

I wonder has anyone done the above two things? And I dont mean just arguing why our own posts are the best thing since sliced bread.

Still nothing like a bit of lying to help clear things up.

by A big bird - . Tue Sep 12, 2006 15:38

Anthony took them, though he had to leave early.
btw: madamk like the IMC quote.
I presume another 'minute' taker was appointed.

by Carnosaur Tue Sep 12, 2006 16:22

"4. A meeting wherein everyone is welocme (incl, child friendly)"

I presume you mean that childcare should be provided. A meeting is not a place for children to be running around or screaming. Not if you want to have any serious discussion or get any busuness concluded.

by James Tue Sep 12, 2006 16:24

They can be read at https://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/private/imc-ireland....html. You may need to subscribe to the list in order to access the archives.

It's worth noting that different people had different ideas of what that meeting was for. As the intro to the minutes says, some weren't “expecting the occasion to be anything more than an informal face-to-face chat over a few drinks…. However others wanted a proper meeting to discuss certain issues and in the end, we had something which fell between the two.

by mother Tue Sep 12, 2006 16:27

run around and scream. thats what they do, brilliantly.
am sure the collective can organise something, all being gender-sensitive. it is they
who are organising this meeting.

by Fake name 2 Tue Sep 12, 2006 16:29

Chris, how many different user names are using on this thread. It is a common courteousy to just use one.

by Sarah P Tue Sep 12, 2006 16:38

I don't have regular net access but have been on the indy lists for most of this year. I'm always too busy to spend much time in Internet Cafes and only get to catch up on the list discussions less than once a week . Usually discussions have moved on by the time I get the chance to catch up so rarely contribute as I feel that it wouldn't be constructive in resurrecting issues from the past - even if it is the very recent past. An abuse report or two is the height of my contribution so far.

However one issue keeps coming up. Chris Murray continues to repeat the exact same or similar allegations about posts of hers. I'm actually very surprosed at the courtesy shown towards her by editors and others on the lists. She was posting since the start of the year but she never actually listens when anyone takes the time to respond to her. When she first started on the lists, a few people on the list pointed out nicely how to format their emails so that they're readable. She blithely ignored them and continued to post in her barely coherent style.

She still doesn't seemed to have grasped the basics of how open publishing works She recently objected to the fact that an aonymous person posted to a thread that she had been 'monitoring since June'. Worse, she just doesn't bother making any effort to back up her claims with specifics and details - even though it has been pointed out many times to her where the newswire archives are and how the Oscailt search engine can be used to locate posts. Apparently, the search box isn't woman friendly. I wondered at the time if she was implying that Oscailt itself is sexist.

What's even more annoying is that she keeps repeating the same accusations. This article is the third time she's accused editors of "tampering" with her story about the Strategic Infrastructure Bill despite it having been carefully pointed out to her with linkw to Indy articles and newswire list posts. The facts of the case don't seem to matter in Chris's world.

She talks about abuse and bullying and harassment on the lists but anyone who takes the time to look through the archives can see that she is the one who is relentless in attacking the editors with her vague accusations based on her own confusion and misunderstandings and with no regard for other list subscribers who have limited Inboxes and limited time to sort through their emails. The editors and others take the time to give her the courtesy of well written replies. God knows why.

So far, she's relied on editors and others on the list not calling her on her bad behaviour and taking her to task on her wilful ignoring of the basics in communicating using text. It's unlikely that such behaviour would be tolerated if she was somebody with a penis. Another male contributor to the lists a fellow Tara campaigner whose contributions were equally as useful to the running of the site was shown the door fairly sharpish. Chris also makes all sorts of threats such as seeking legal advice on her SIB thread and reporting the irish collective to some higher global list. I presume now that she was referring to the womens list mentioned further up.

Unfortunately, I won’t be able to make the meeting as I don't live in Dublin and don't have the time to travel but I'm glad that list posting guidelines is on the agenda. Those with regular access to the lists should have been putting Chris straight as soon as she started. Unfortunately, she wasn't the only one on the list who had no regard for netiquette or those of us without regular net access. Pat C and Iosaf come to mind. It was regularly pointed out to Dunk another male contributor to the list whenever his messages were in breach of netiquette and the same standards should have been applied to all the list contributors

Speaking of Iosaf, it seems that he's decided to join in on the unsubstantiated allegations. I distincly remember a woman from Barcelona posting on imc-ireland a couple of months ago to introduce herself to the list and she received two friendly and welcoming response from a couple of the current editors.

by pat c Tue Sep 12, 2006 16:49

i dont know yoy. certainly not on the list as sarah. if you had problems with my posting practise then all you had to do was comment on the list. thats what its for.

i have been in disputes on the list but it takes two to tango. i'm not aware of any problem with my formatting style i always attempt to ost clearly . i participate in the editing process. so that means i post more to the list.
as i say i have no idea as to who you are so i'll let it at that.

by chris murray Tue Sep 12, 2006 16:50

toe-tape provvided a link to the imc womyn site. mother cos I have two kids and one is playing by me feet. with my jewellery box.
other questions esp the above, written by a man. can be answered at what sounds like a very interesting meeting.

by chris Tue Sep 12, 2006 16:53

I meant Patc, that sarah is a man.
thus am now going to cook.

by wageslave Tue Sep 12, 2006 16:55

IMHO The article was not particularly good or relevant. However I agree that you have to be careful when making a judgement call on whether someone is playing a cardl. However in many cases its pretty clear cut that someone is just being manipulative.

I am NOT saying that women do not do more care/house work than men. They do.
Im saying that if they are too busy doing that then they don't really have time to spend on stuff like being an editor on indy anyway. If they DO have time to be indy editors then the technical requirements are not going to be the problem timewise or otherwise.
While I sympathise on this lopsided state of affairs, it is a societal problem not one that indy can change (although they can highlight it!)

Indy needs editors who are women.
editing takes time.
Women are often busier than men

Those three facts cut down the range of women who can apply. I agree. But the fact is, either you have time to spare or you don't. if you do, the tech stuff will not be the problem timewise. Thats all I'm saying. Please Don't put words in my mouth or attribute beliefs to me which I don't hold.

I have NOT dismissed your arguments, merely stated that IMHO there is not as much evidence of sexism ON THIS THREAD as you are convinced there is. Regarding the lists, I said I will research it further. I will (and if you can suggest some good places to start I would be grateful). I don't think thats an unreasonable position.

IMHO The cause of women being discriminated against is not helped by the fact that some of the people supposedly fighting for it are also a bit daft and are a liability.

In my opinion such people leave you open to having the baby thrown out with the bathwater and as such they do your cause no good.

However if you highlighted the great willingness of men to use such people as justification for their extreme caution in allowing new people into the editorial then I would have to stand back and say, you might have a point there.

But why is this the case? Is it just plain old ugly sexism, or is it something else?

IMHO the editorial list is quite exclusive and defensive. but not just to women. To any outsiders, male or female. Chekov has said that the nature of the structure means they have to be careful because once in, it is difficult to remove editors and they can do a lot of harm. So this situation has generated a kind of paranoia which might affect the selection process in a very negative fashion.

I think chekov has hit the nail on the head. There is a systemic paranoia as a result of the structure. I believe the solution of making it much easier for editors to collectively expel a bad editor should have a very positive effect on the willingness of current editors to accept new blood, female or male and should result in a much healthier m/f balance on the editorial team and far less defensive attitudes from those on the list.

Lets not confuse systemic paranoia with sexism. However that said, I will leave the jury out on whether there really is a culture of sexism on indy until I research the matter further. Those links would help.

This thread was indeed a bit of a head exploder. However, I can't often say talking to "myself " was constructive but in this case I think it was! :) Thanks for your input.

by Truth Tue Sep 12, 2006 16:59

So Chris according to more paranoia from you Sarah is a man pretending to be a woman because she disagree's with you and points out the facts since you joined the editorial list. She is right, you should have gotten the same treatment that the druid from tara got.

by James Tue Sep 12, 2006 17:07

mother: run around and scream. thats what they do, brilliantly.
am sure the collective can organise something, all being gender-sensitive. it is they
who are organising this meeting.

Hi Chris, from way back towards the start of the thread: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/78329?author_name=James...66486

The original proposal for the meeting suggested that attendees contribute €5, which partly goes towards contributing towards the cost of attendees paying somebody to mind their child for the afternoon. Probably this figure can be revised as appropriate.

The idea is that parents organise care for the child as they think fit and that attendees at the meeting will contribute towards the cost of that. Other practical suggestions, especially those which can be organised by those suggesting them, would of course be welcome.

Finally, as above, It would be handy to know in advance if people with kids will be wanting to avail of this, so we know how much, if anything, is needed. You can do this via the imc-ireland list or by the ordinary contact form.

by Another Robot Tue Sep 12, 2006 17:10

Chekov has said that the nature of the structure means they have to be careful because once in, it is difficult to remove editors and they can do a lot of harm. So this situation has generated a kind of paranoia which might affect the selection process in a very negative fashion.

It is easy enough to remove an editor. One of the problems is that a large proportion of the current editors appear not to know their own operating rules. I wouldn't mind betting a good proportion of them couldn't restate them in their own words without having a look at them first.

If the collective is to operate by consensus, which is an Indymedia core value, then what Chekov appears to be suggesting is a problem.

Simply put, all it requires is for 3/4 of the editors to vote to expel an editorial collective member. That doesn't seem particularly hard if someone is as egregious as suggested. See Default Method for Decision Making, item 9.

Other possible alternative structures include simple majority voting and electoral colleges (so beloved by racists in the USA and Trinity/UCD graduates and divines).

To my mind the alternatives suck more and will lead to factionalism and politicisation of the collective.

Describing caution as "paranoia" is not useful. Paranoia is an irrational mental condition.

by Chekov Tue Sep 12, 2006 17:53

It is easy enough to remove an editor. One of the problems is that a large proportion of the current editors appear not to know their own operating rules. I wouldn't mind betting a good proportion of them couldn't restate them in their own words without having a look at them first.

Unfortunately, the rules as they were concocted for decision making have never really worked. Much of this has been to do with the total lack of organisation on the lists caused by the deluge of reported posts and the flame wars caused by trolls and narcissists. However, without a sizeable group of people devoted to organising and managing the decision making process, I feel that they are too unwieldy to work as they are (and I wrote them originally so I can't be accused of not understanding them or being biased against them). Also, if it is the case that most editors don't understand the processes then this is a problem - they should be clear enough to be easily understood by active editors.

Even relatively minor uncontroversial proposals are routinely getting lost as soon as somebody voices any sort of objection.

If the collective is to operate by consensus, which is an Indymedia core value, then what Chekov appears to be suggesting is a problem.
Nah, not really. As long as the decision making mechanism aims for consensus where possible there shouldn't be any problem. For example, IMC venezuela was approved by the new imc list just a couple of days ago. From it's principles: "Decisions are made by consensus. If consensus didn't happen. Decision will be democratically made by the majority." Nobody has objected to this thusfar on the global process list (the only real global indymedia decision making list).

Simply put, all it requires is for 3/4 of the editors to vote to expel an editorial collective member. That doesn't seem particularly hard if someone is as egregious as suggested. See Default Method for Decision Making, item 9.
If we can't even agree to organise a survey as it stands I think a recall is way too much for us.

Other possible alternative structures include simple majority voting and electoral colleges (so beloved by racists in the USA and Trinity/UCD graduates and divines).
Such guilt by association is a bit silly. We want whatever decision making mechanism will work and will bring us forward and will give a say to as many involved people as possible.

To my mind the alternatives suck more and will lead to factionalism and politicisation of the collective.

Unfortunately, I think that the status quo is a serious case of sticking our heads in the sand. If we go on like this we won't exist in a year. There are serious doses of burn out around.

by Another Robot Tue Sep 12, 2006 18:32

First on the "guilt by association": I think that it's worth remembering that electoral colleges were specifically created as a means to control democracy. Sorry for appearing to be silly, but I think those are clear examples of why electoral colleges suck. They're fundamentally anti-democratic. It's gerrymandering institutionalised. Apologies for any seeming hyperbole, but I can't see that either simple majority voting or electoral-colleges are good things.

Second: You've also got to define what you mean by "work". I think we'd all agree with the anodyne statement that "we want what works". For me "works" means that it is not possible for any numerically superior political or ideological group to easily gain control of Ireland's only independent media outlet by sheer virtue of numbers. I think that minority positions should be capable of expressing disagreement with the majority, but that there should be a significantly negative affect on their ability to continue doing so should they be shown to be frivolous or malicious. The fundamental problem with indymedia.ie as I see it, is a lenience given to people that are demonstrably unwilling or unable to co-operate. Some editors and participants have embraced a "openness means do anything you like" philosophy and (in some cases actively and in others passively) encouraged this. Now we're running to the other extreme and talking about apparently a non-democratic structure modelled upon early attempts to preserve a facade of democracy but retain control in the hands of an elite.

Third, on the IMC-Venezuela example: That sounds like "if we all agree on something then that's consensus otherwise we vote on it". If that's really what is proposed then that is a bastardisation of the concept of consensus which involves a specific process (see link below).

Fourth, on heads in sand: I agree with your conclusions that there's a problem but I think it's to do with people's behaviour, not the mechanism.

You may be completely right and your proposed solution or parts of it may be the only way to continue publishing material not produced by the corporate media. I remain unconvinced, but am not going to vote on it.

The whole thing is a completely depressing recapitulation of the apparent problems of democracy and openness and leaves me wondering whether or not I should just pack the whole thing in, subscribe to FOX, CNN and accept that there are enough complete shitheads in the world that they can't be given freedom and dignity as they don't know what to do with it and will happily trample over the rest of us. I'm off to join the PDs. It "works" for them.

by jimmy Tue Sep 12, 2006 18:39

The idea with the electoral is actually to give more people a say.

At the moment the only people who really have decision making powers are the editors.

An electoral college would allow different groups i.e. contributors, people doing screenings, outreach groups etc to all have a say in what goes on.

by James R Tue Sep 12, 2006 18:43

First on the "guilt by association": I think that it's worth remembering that electoral colleges were specifically created as a means to control democracy. Sorry for appearing to be silly, but I think those are clear examples of why electoral colleges suck. They're fundamentally anti-democratic. It's gerrymandering institutionalised. Apologies for any seeming hyperbole, but I can't see that either simple majority voting or electoral-colleges are good things.

Now I can't really claim to be any expert on electroral colleges, but going on the original proposal provoking this discussion it struck me as an effort to expand the franchise without opening the site to the sort of swamping by organised groups you mention. Currently voting resides with editors. The system discussed is looking at a method of expanding voting to a contributers group as well as a public meeting where people possibly register themselves in advance for attendance. I'm a bit confused by your opinion on this. On one hand you have a problem with the current set up that you characterise as elite, but on the other you think the mooted attempt to extend the franchise is simply the elite trying to protect its tentacles by the illusion of extending democracy. The only alternative I read from you is keep things as they are. I share your concern that it should not become 'possible for any numerically superior political or ideological group to easily gain control' of the site - but outside of what has been suggested I can't see what you are advancing as a solution? I'm not putting words in your mouth here, I'm just trying to figure out what you are getting at!

by Another Robot Tue Sep 12, 2006 18:44

But who decides which groups are "real groups" and how much of a say they get? Why should specific groups be privileged in this way?

by Another Robot Tue Sep 12, 2006 18:54

My suggestion is that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the voting structures. I'd suggest that the solution to all these problems is for concerned people to 1) read and understand the editorial guidelines; 2) read and understand the operating rules; 3) spend a couple of weeks with an XHTML textbook; 4) read wikipedia on netiquette; 5) figure out how to use a mail client; 6) spend at least 3 months trying to help in reporting editorial problems.

There's obviously a crying need for more people to be editors and for women especially to get involved, but no one wants to do the actual work.

Add to this that once an "electoral college" (which I can't claim to be an expert in either) model is created we're still talking about majority voting rules. Any power hungry nutjob would have to be brain-dead not to see that this is an attempt to retain control within the collective while at the same time giving a grudging, "non swamping" input to other groups. Hence, I, as a nutjob will still want to be an editor.

I just don't see how it solves the central problem. I appreciate your contribution and questions in the spirit that you offer them and have never thought otherwise.

by James R Tue Sep 12, 2006 19:16

Any power hungry nutjob would have to be brain-dead not to see that this is an attempt to retain control within the collective while at the same time giving a grudging, "non swamping" input to other groups. Hence, I, as a nutjob will still want to be an editor.

Okay, I think I see what you are saying. At the minute power does reside with the editorial collective. I think this is more a consequence of a decline in behind the scenes participation in the site over the past few years than design. The editorial list originally gained its mandate from real life meetings, as these whittled away the mandate came to reside in the editorial group and list. With even film screenings being organised through it whereas orignally all discussions to do with anything other than editorial process were meant to occur on the IMC-Ireland list. I think the expanding the franchise suggestion is aiming to explore how this can be reversed, what this means is looking at a away of implementing a structure where the editors have their mandate and guidelines defined elsewhere and then act on the back. Thus returing the editorial list to the working site and functionary role it was originally intended as as opposed to being imbued with any other power.

by Info Tue Sep 12, 2006 19:16

is here

by Another Robot Tue Sep 12, 2006 19:25

Okay, I think I see what you are saying.
At this stage that's more than I can be sure of. All I am sure of is:

1) Indy.ie should have a lot more good features and would consolidate it's position as a way of getting non-government, non-corporate information to loads of people.

2) I want women to be involved as editors as much as I want men to be involved as editors

3) I want more people to be involved as editors

4) Things are not working and too much time is being spent on dealing with fights

5) Editors are not trying to work by consensus. They go straight to conflicts and blocks.

6) Any solution has to account for game-theory and human psychology

7) This isn't easy

8) There are trolls

9) There are mentally ill people

10) The internet allows a lot of bullshit without repercussion.

11) Good luck.

by Madam k Tue Sep 12, 2006 19:25

You were obviously not in attendance, Jon G Proposed a show of hands regarding Paula G and Elaine as proposed editorsBoth have contributed vast amounts of great work .They were both blocked much to surprise of many .

Now if you are dealing with hearsay and accusing people of lying may i surgest you pluck off

by wageslave Tue Sep 12, 2006 19:43

AnotherRobot, you make some good points. However, the fact remains that there is a problem with the current status quo.

Personally, I agree consensus is a good thing except that people in practice are often afraid to confront and dislodge a bully and the current process is rather impractical for doing so, no matter what you say.

I totally agree with your suggestions about tightening up things and that concerned people "self educate" and help out with a view to becoming editors and will try to do so myself. However that in itself does not solve the problems altogether.

However, I also think Chekov is correct that the rules re: 75% majority etc, while sounding good, in practice do not work well for getting rid of troublesome people.

If the process of dislodging a bully or miscreant is made easier (perhaps by using a simple secret ballot with option to appeal) then people will know it is easy to be kicked out if other editors have a problem with them so they will tend to behave better.

Also, accepting new people will be less of a problem as you can get rid of them easily, so you do not have to be as "careful" in allowing people onboard. This does not mean that most other business cannot be by consensus. Just the process of getting rid of people needs changing to make it easier. (There is still a problem with factions but if they emerge and start kicking others out then I imagine its likely to become pretty obvious)

I think this is the nub of the problem of exclusivity and blocking of new blood be they men or women. Over time I think this will help the m/f balance.

Have any good ideas on how to avoid abuses while using secret ballots?

again just my 2c

by Another Robot Tue Sep 12, 2006 20:25

AnotherRobot, you make some good points. However, the fact remains that there is a problem with the current status quo.
Thanks. I think they're pretty lame points actually. I agree that a problem remains with the status quo, which is why I'm suggesting that the editorial group tries two things: 1) implement the actual rules they agreed on (after a lengthy fucking discussion); 2) does not tolerate abuse of the mailing lists (e.g. Chekov's proposals). All these things require a change in people's behaviour and more people becoming involved actively in editorial by following the basic, minimal and easy self-enabling suggestions I made above.

Personally, I agree consensus is a good thing except that people in practice are often afraid to confront and dislodge a bully and the current process is rather impractical for doing so, no matter what you say.
Then people in practice are fucked and doomed to living in fear of bullies and being controlled because bullies will adapt to new situations and find new ways of bullying. As far as I can see consensus in some form is the only truly democratic way of making decisions. In order to determine that it had failed the indy.ie collective would have to actually apply it whenever a contentious issue came up and would also have to do things such as mandating specific actions to be taken by specific people by specific times.

I totally agree with your suggestions about tightening up things and that concerned people "self educate" and help out with a view to becoming editors and will try to do so myself. However that in itself does not solve the problems altogether.
I don't think that on its own would solve all the problems. I think the editors also have to stop pussy footing around the issues of dealing with disruptors.

However, I also think Chekov is correct that the rules re: 75% majority etc, while sounding good, in practice do not work well for getting rid of troublesome people.
They've never even been tried, and the troublesome people (I wouldn't use that phrase) have all been outside of the collective so far. The waste of time has been long email wars with abusive bullies demanding that things be done their way. Also, are you suggesting that less then 75% of people should be allowed to expel someone from the collective? What's the magic number? 51%?

If the process of dislodging a bully or miscreant is made easier (perhaps by using a simple secret ballot with option to appeal) then people will know it is easy to be kicked out if other editors have a problem with them so they will tend to behave better.
God, I don't know. Its starting to sound like a horrible Stalinist dictatorship with career-minded crowd-pleasers hewing to the middle line afraid of being seen as "troublemakers" and then 5 years down the line the "faction" becomes obvious after it has seized the reins of power.

Fundamentally there's nothing that can be done if the majority of participants stand idly by and wait while abuses take place. Unfortunately the best lack all conviction etc.

by wageslave Tue Sep 12, 2006 21:07

I agree, in an ideal world, people are brave and good and everything is wonderful but alas we're not in one of those. You said yourself that any solution has to take into account game theory and human psychology. Humans suck and many don't appreciate true freedom and don't know what to do with it. Life sucks , get a helmet!! But Indy is still a worthwhile endeavour.

I was not at all implying reducing the majority below 75%. I meant the procedure as a whole as per the guidelines where there is blocking/disagreement if it is applied to getting rid of someone. Such a system may work well on impersonal matters but you have to look someone in the eye (or suffer their email wrath) when you are kicking them out and in practice thats difficult for humans. Sometimes it's easier to do the right thing in such cases if you know they will not easily be able to pin the blame on you for their demise. Humans want other humans to like them. Also, Nobody likes a nutter out to get them, virtual or otherwise. :)

I really don't think the odd secret ballot to get rid of a miscreant will turn indy into a stalinist nightmare. In general I think humans join things like indy because they believe in the ideals that it represents. Such people will try to do the right thing most of the time.

by redjade Tue Sep 12, 2006 21:45

I look forward to reading Chekov's Proposal fleshed out and specific - I will reserve final judgment for later.

But I will now offer some of my reservations ahead of time.

Any proposal that empowers - by vote or whatever - people that are not active media makers and/or Oscailt 'house cleaners' (people hiding trolls etc) is probably going to get a no vote from me.

Indymedia is not a parliament, it is not the 'United Nations' of the Irish Left, its internal structure should not be a talk shop for anything other than how to make indymedia better serve the larger community.

All this talk I read about 51% vs 75%, Mandates vs Electoral Colleges and so on is giving me the creeps just thinking about it.

Obviously the editors should 'look like' the broader community as much as possible yadda yadda yadda [insert prerequisite concern and outrage that there are no women editors, even though previously mentioned repeatedly, here] - but I am much more concerned that people who make good media are appreciated for it and, if they wish, have a 'voting seat' or whatever representation they think necessary.

For example, the Revolt Video people - what are their needs from Indymedia? Is one of these Electoral Collages really going to understand Revolt Video? apologies for dragging Revolt Vid into this debate, just as an example

'Dictatorship of the Doers' is a phrase that I helped to inject into the Indy .ie ethos a long time ago - more recently I have been regretting that as some people have chosen to misinterpret its meaning. Misinterpreted to mean exclusion of voices rather than empowering the important voices.

Indymedia is about Making Media, first and foremost.

Readers, participants, commenters, trolls and even nazi spammers are welcome to add their comments about what they think of how Indymedia.ie should be - but without the Media Makers there is no Indymedia.ie.

All Power to The Media Makers!

All Power to The Media Makers! (apologies to ex-Pioneer)

by jaysus Tue Sep 12, 2006 22:04

what the feck is this shit-

please look at the site JD. a dictatorship of the doers-is precisely right. am now going to check out the archive for editors /contributors and see who the doers are.

The image is appalling, your budapest is far prettier and more relaxing than that image and the offensiveness of the whole comment is too tiring to even begin with.

I know btw a lot of women doers-they are too busy doing to be fecked with your vision of socialism-looks like reichstag anti-kunst art as well.

kunst art was degenerate art. anti - kunst(cunt) means that a specific vision is propagated to achieve a propagandist projection of ideality. De Valera did it, O donoghue is doing it. in your image above the woman is an equal. hahahahahahahahahahahahaha ha.

the image is idealised.

by Lost Cause Tue Sep 12, 2006 23:10

"...and the troublesome people (I wouldn't use that phrase) have all been outside of the collective so far"

Aint that just the truth, eh?

But troublesome is the phrase thats used and thats how everyone who has a fundamental/principled disagreement with the collective is eventually defined, one way or another. Either you go under, apologise and show your contrition over a period of repentance or you are 'troublesome, bullying, abusive' etc - all applied without a trace of irony or self-consciousness about the possibility that maybe, even just sometimes, the behaviour of some members of the collective might deserve to be described as 'troublesome, bullying, abusive etc'. Unthinkable. The collective is infallible. Its own anger is always fully justified but it's an outrage when other people reflect their sense of injustice back at it, in eqaully strong terms. My God, what foot stamping goes on then! Classic bullying, in fact. No, the collective is always and in every way perfect, it never mistreats anyone, it is always a victim of 'abusers', there is no variation on that. It is an eternal little victim which nevertheless still manages to retain all the power and control to itself, amongst the same group of people. How to keep potentially 'troublesome' editors out. How to get rid of them, should someone who is admitted to the inner sanctum turn out not to be as agreeable as was wanted. Free personality and character assessments for all! Queue here now to find out if your are a good person or a bad person. Broadening the franchise? I dont think so. The franchise includes bolshy women, people of the left and right, good, bad and ugly, people of no particular persuasion - the whole gamut. Where are we all on this collective? There you have it guys and girls:

"so far all of the 'troublesome' people have been outside [the collective]." What a happy coincidence!

Anarchists? Not that ,certainly. 5 Years. 15 people. No women. Daily readership 20-50K, right? Even The Independent can say better than that. Just about any other news media could.

Broadening the franchise? How to look and feel as though you are doing that without actually doing it, you mean. What a knotty problem that is and how infuriating it is to have people around who are prepared to make the point forcefully. Well round and round you go in circles. Your meeting will be a hoot, Im sure. Seriously, I hope you work something out. Nice people, but you really, urgently need to stand well back from what you are doing for a bit. You are doing some great work here with this newswire but if it is going to burn itself out, it will burn itself out for lack of oxygen, not because of the fresh air that some people have been trying to blow on it. It is still the best, the most exciting, the most needed source of news and media in Ireland, imo. But it has major flaws like anything else and signs are it is not going to recognise those flaws, not in the short term at least. A great pity.

by wageslave Tue Sep 12, 2006 23:43

First of all, I am not an editor and am as interested in seeing changes as the next man or woman. I was just offering my 2c worth

I was the one who used the term troublesome. It was meant, for the purposes of the discussion, to refer to someone who prevented the smooth running of the site and acted in a disruptive fashion that was obvious to all.

You missed the point of the suggestion that it be made easier for editors to get rid of bad editors.

The logic being that if people with power knew they could get rid of a disastrous editor easily and without too many reprocussions then they might relax a bit and let new people in as editors with less resistance. In other words, it was actually meant to help encourage the system to open up.

My belief that this is a key point came when Chekov made what I thought was a crucial observation that people felt they had to be very "careful" allowing an editor in because they were in practice very difficult to remove once in and when in they could cause a lot of trouble if they chose to.

In an effort to get people to address this "paranoia" which IMHO seemed to be part of the reason for the systemic unwillingness to admit new blood and women to the collective, I tried to discuss it further and suggested the idea of a secret ballot as one approach.

My intention in all this was to get people talking , trying to get a handle on the issue and offering suggestions so that some good ideas might bubble to the surface, (not necessarily mine.) before the meeting

by Madam K Wed Sep 13, 2006 00:30

" I've included that in one of my proposals
- introduce a recall mechanism (using similar criteria as to appointment)
- automatic lapse in editorship after one month of non-activity"

Grand

Madam K

by Little Bird Wed Sep 13, 2006 02:03

You obviously weren't in attendance either.

From what I hear JonG did suggest a vote at the meeting proposing PaulaG and Elaine as editors and he was told there was no point because the meeting was not a decision making body. He wanted to go ahead anyway just to see and his bluff was called because there was no unaimty in favour of it. But they can't have been blocked because the meeting had no blocking power.

I'd say there's lots of plucking going on indeed my downy friend.

by Anthony Wed Sep 13, 2006 04:17

I'm just after getting the chance to have a proper read of this article - aside from a few quick glances as time allows. I'm shocked at what's being written about those of us who who have put in a huge effort in building up this site over the years.

It seems that it's the season for making up accusations against any active Indymedia editorial volunteer and I'm not so surprised that my own turn would come eventually. I have to admit, it is more annoying when baseless but very serious allegations are made against oneself rather than a colleague. I can now sympathise much better with Robbie, RIsible and Chekov.

an editor of Barcelona indymedia who is spending increasing time in Dublin and has been making contact with political groups in Ireland since Springtime asked to join the list. She was refused / removed.
The only person to be refused.
We never took any democratic decision to allow such a thing to occur. did we? Who is going to take the responsibility for that? We did talk about removing the druid from the list during the Summer - that's something else. SO at end there are many issues of illegitimate decision making & non democratic behaviour in the indymedia ireland world as it is currently shaped

As the active list administrator of the imc-ireland lists over the past few years (a non-glamourous job dealing with spam mails so that other list subscribers don't have to), the above allegation is being made against myself despite the fact that it doesn't mention me by name. Iosaf presents no evidence for his allegation - just states it as if it were fact - though he's not even clear on whether it was a refusal or a removal. The reality is that the editor from Barcelona Indymedia joined the imc-ireland list and posted her first message (as nú) on the 24th August. She was responded to with a welcoming and informative email by myself and another friendly one from jd. The global listwork people are carrying out maintenance at the moment so the archives of the list aren't available at this time but if anyone searches through the posts on the 24th and 25th August when normal service resumes, they can verify for themselves that I speak the truth. I never received a reply from nú and she hasn't posted on the lists since her first message to the list but that's par for the course when new people contact the lists. As of today, she's still listed as a subscriber to the imc-ireland list.

This then provides the flimsy basis for Iosaf's assertion that "there are many issues of illegitimate decision making & non democratic behaviour in the indymedia ireland world".



There are many other misrepresentations and false allegations on this article but at this time I don't have the time and energy to deal with them at this late hour. I'll just deal with the ones that mention my own good name. Madam K kindly mentions me in relation to my offer to help out anyone who wanted to learn more HTML at a meet-up in June. All the people subscribed to the real world list would have received the minutes as I sent them to the list two days later (13th June) for review and they are normally available in the imc-ireland archives. Since the list archives are temporarily down, I'll post the minutes on the relevant newswire event notice - along with my own personal thoughts - so that non-list subscribers can read them.

I also sent an email to Madam K and the editorial list earlier this evening in response to an abuse report that she made regarding Little Bird's accusation that Madam K was bending the truth. In it I stated that as a rule people should never presume malice as the motive for somebody else's actions or statements when the answer is more often than not simpler and more benign. IMO such a presumption says more about the accuser than the accusee.

I also stated that "A Little Bird" is actually correct in "that the indy meeting that you talk about had no decision making power and this was explained at the meeting". However if I remember correcly this clarification had happened before Madam K arrived at the meeting so it's well out of order calling her a liar. I also remember that the "indicative" vote as proposed by Jon G who had missed the earlier - and more constructive part of the 'get-together' - as being painfully embarrassing as the person in question was present in the room and I personally thought that it was a stupid, pointless and tactless gesture since it had already been clarfied that such a vote carried no weight and that the editorial list is - and always was - the primary decision making forum for editorial matters.

by lost cause Wed Sep 13, 2006 10:58

I didnt misinterpret what you personally intended by the expression, but 'keeping the troublemakers' out is so apt for what is happening. There is of course an issue about people who are not genuine about indymedia and who would want to change its core ethos of open publishing and participation. Sadly some of the existing editors themselves seem intent on undermining that exact principle - they label genuine and committed contributors as abusers and disruptive because they dont see eye to eye with them in every way or because they have the 'nerve' to challenge them about prejudicial behaviour. The biggest crime of all is to insist on having the debate. You are told that the editorial list is where you can discuss the running of the site, but that is only true to a limited extent. You are supposed to shut up and suffer what you feel is wrong and/or condense your thoughts into two or three line posts for their convenience. Any substantial rationale offered on the editorial list that is over two paragraphs long is conventionally shouted down as disruptive and time consuming. Shut up and like us or lump is really what is being said. So that 'get involved' invite has a strictly limited meaning, in reality.

On that point however, I appreciate the courage of the collective in putting this thread up here and letting everyone take ownership of this debate for once. It is a first and I really hope that they will be prepared to do this with other issues to, however uncomfortable it may feel. Another bone of contention for many people is the application of the editorial guidelines. Most of the anger which users feel about that seems to arise from misunderstanding and not from censorship, which editors are so often wrongly accused of. But there are times when hides ought to be openly justified. That would be a real departure in news reporting and editing in Ireland. The only mistakes the MSM acknowledge are things like 'We apologise for saying in our report yesterday that the Rufton Tuftons were holding their daughter Priscilla's engagement party at the Burlington. We should, of course, have said The Shelbourne. Our apologies for any distress caused.'

I have to take issue with your earlier assertion that women with children just have to accept that they will not be allowed or able to participate in media to the same extent as men. That is tantamount to telling us to get back in the kitchen where we belong. This whole thing is supposed to be about the message, not the medium and every effort should be made to recognise the circumstances of every potential sort of editor - elderly people, people with disability, young adults, people with language difficulties, men and women. It is much to smug just to sit back and accept a status quo predicated on what the average white male is able to contribute (whether by time, inclination or aptitude) and then measure all other involvement against that standard. But that is exactly what is happening. Of course the whole of society is predicated on the white male standard, so Indymedia does not deserve to be singled out in that context. It was perhaps unrealistic to imagine that it would be different. To the extent that it is trying to do that, extending the scope of decision making to include a wider group of people is welcome.

When it comes to editing the site's contents, it is done by and large very fairly - and certainly more fairly and openly than anything else available in Ireland. I also support the idea that it ought not to be a free for all. Even with the close attention that is paid to trolling, bb chat and abusive comments, the site still has too much, imo, unnecessary and not particularly interesting commentary. I've been as guilty as anyone - its so easy to do and users should be encouraged to be disciplined/considerate in this respect. When you first find Indymedia it is almost like a form of therapy to be able, for once, to say what you think and have it out there. It beats the frustration of reading newspapers that never have anything in them that reflects your actual experience or views, or even the facts. But that is a sensation that ought not to be over-indulged.

The bottom line for this contributor is that my newswire contributions are welcome but me and my views about how things might be done, are not, it seems. Once I understood that, I stopped helping out with the 'housekeeping'. Sulking it may be, but that is about the only form of protest I can make unless I stop writing for the site altogether.

by Selfish Jean Wed Sep 13, 2006 11:32

"I can now sympathise much better with Robbie"

Why? He is the one editor who is blocking Paula Geraghty from becoming an editor. If it wasn't for Robbie there would a female editor. He is also the only editor who hides comments which are critical of him. All other editors report such comments (which are in breach of the guidelines) to the list.

You should be more careful of who you sympathise with, readers might start to think that the editorial collective is a Boys Club

by eeekkkkk (an ex ed) Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:11

http://publication.nodel.org/node/100/print
The Packet Gang
Essential reading to understand the pre fifth birthday of imc irl blues.

I would be of the opinion that it would be healthy for the site and for editors and everybody if a self-selecting group of women already involved in indymedia ireland in some way (5/6 people) formed and asked for the running of the site to be turned over to them wholesale for a fixed period of time - say 2 months.

I think it's important too to keep in mind that it is a level of success that is breeding scrutiny and discontent. If the site were a failure then nobody would give a shit about any of this.

As an ex editor I can also say with some confidence that it's the people who contribute articles and media and who script features that really run the site - that's what the phrase 'dictatorship of the doers' means imo. Nobody needs to be an editor to do that stuff.

It's healthier to think of editors as the equivalent of those who turn up at 6am and clean up the office rather than thinking of them as the management.

by James O'B. Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:11

It is worth noting that there is no reason to think wageslave’s argument about the time women have is one that the editorial collective share.
----------------------

The biggest crime of all is to insist on having the debate. You are told that the editorial list is where you can discuss the running of the site, but that is only true to a limited extent. You are supposed to shut up and suffer what you feel is wrong and/or condense your thoughts into two or three line posts for their convenience. Any substantial rationale offered on the editorial list that is over two paragraphs long is conventionally shouted down as disruptive and time consuming.

I think this is very inaccurate. There is every indication that long contributions are welcome on the editorial list. There is in fact no moderation on the editorial list so as of now people can post as much as they like. And some do post an awful lot. In addition, there was no attempt whatsoever to restrict people’s arguments if they are at odds with some of the editors. For example, if you follow the thread “women and indymedia”* one can see that there are 62 emails in that thread, with roughly 20 from one contributor in particular. That isn’t the hallmark of minority voices being shouted down.

*https://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/private/imc-ireland....html

People probably couldn’t have more of an opportunity to express their views. However, that doesn’t mean that one’s views are accepted all the time. However, quantity of contributions aren’t the same as quality. If editors are do their job, they will have to, at some stage, make a judgment on what they agree with. Otherwise very little will ever get done. They will from time to time disagree with pretty much everybody, themselves included. That’s to be expected and not to be exaggerated as equivalent to being “shouted down as disruptive and time consuming”.

If there is a specific decision which you feel is unjustified, then it can be revisited later. Sometimes, people like to try one approach and if it doesn’t work then the case for an alternative is even stronger. There is rarely, if ever, any maliciousness involved. If there is, I for one, would be interested in it being pointed out.

by James O'B. - The 6th Non-Editors' International (Makhnovite) Wed Sep 13, 2006 13:30

Sorry for posting repeatedly, but when questions are raised on an open thread, they deserve a reply.

Selfish Jean: Why? He is the one editor who is blocking Paula Geraghty from becoming an editor. If it wasn't for Robbie there would a female editor. He is also the only editor who hides comments which are critical of him.

That’s not true. Paula was blocked until May. The block expired then. It’s not very fair to pick out Robbie as the sole reason for Paula not being an editor. At least one other editor agreed with him, but there is a tendency in the “veto” system for the others to remain silent and to have one editor to be left caring the can on unpopular issues. When the likelihood that the criticism will be personal, this isn’t a surprise, though it is disappointing.

There is a considerable background debate about criteria for being an editor which was resurrected about that time. Now you may have strong opinions on that in general, and on Paula’s case in particular, but it isn’t fair to imply that he acted arbitrarily. For those interested in following this particular discussion the most relevant thread in the archives begins at https://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/private/imc-ireland....html.

I think Robbie has done a terrific amount work for indymedia. It’s not very encouraging for people thinking about becoming an editor, if they are likely to be subject to such relentless criticism from a small number of people. That’s not to say he’s infallible, anymore than the rest of us – editors or not – but a sense of proportion should be kept.

by Selfish Jean - Break Into The Boys Club Wed Sep 13, 2006 14:01

"That’s not true."

It is true. Robbie blocked Paula. No other editor openly did so. Please do not accuse me of lieing.

"Paula was blocked until May. The block expired then. "

Why haven't the other male editors proposed Paula to be an editor in the meantime? Is the Boys Club sticking together, not wanting to upset Robbie?

"It’s not very fair to pick out Robbie as the sole reason for Paula not being an editor. At least one other editor agreed with him, but there is a tendency in the “veto” system for the others to remain silent and to have one editor to be left caring the can on unpopular issues. "

How in the name of rationality are we supposed to know whether someone else opposed Paula? They didnt openly do so at the time. Would you care to name this editor? Otherwise I must insist that it is indeed fair to "pick out Robbie".

"There is a considerable background debate about criteria for being an editor which was resurrected about that time. Now you may have strong opinions on that in general, and on Paula’s case in particular, but it isn’t fair to imply that he acted arbitrarily."

He did not give any real reasons for blocking Paula therefore I am entitled to presume he acted arbitarily. The fact that he had only just become an editor himself is also relevant. With awe inspiring arrogance his first editorial action was to prevent a woman from becoming an editor.

"For those interested in following this particular discussion the most relevant thread in the archives begins at https://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/private/imc-ireland....html. "

James If you go to that url then it demands a password. Is it only open to members of the Boys Club?

"I think Robbie has done a terrific amount work for indymedia. It’s not very encouraging for people thinking about becoming an editor, if they are likely to be subject to such relentless criticism from a small number of people. That’s not to say he’s infallible, anymore than the rest of us – editors or not – but a sense of proportion should be kept."

Robbie has blocked a woman from becoming an editor. He also hides posts which are critical of him, something which no other editor does. Even other editors have criticised him on the list for doing this. Hes certainly not infallible. Do you support him on the hiding of posts?

by pat c Wed Sep 13, 2006 14:15

You dont have to be a member of the Boys Club to access the list which James mentioned.

Just go to:

http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-ireland...orial

You may subscribe there.

by Troothy Wed Sep 13, 2006 14:25

"I have to take issue with your earlier assertion that women with children just have to accept that they will not be allowed "

Who exactly are you addressing there? And are they someone that is on the editorial collective. Looking through this thread I can't see anyone voicing that opinion and would completely condemn it. It seems that you're very eager to put words into people's mouths and create an impression that there's sexism when in fact you're just making it up and using it as a weapon to attack people.

by Troothy Wed Sep 13, 2006 14:31

I would be of the opinion that it would be healthy for the site and for editors and everybody if a self-selecting group of women already involved in indymedia ireland in some way

I'm of the opinion that this is typical of the racism inherent in ex-editors. You show absolutely no interest in meeting the needs of non-white people and concentrate on pushing the agenda of women, to the exclusion of the most marginalised voices. I have other weighty opinions which I won't bother to back up if you wish to hear them too. (I once sat beside an ex editor)

by Seán Ryan Wed Sep 13, 2006 14:43

I don't want to get involved in any of the arguments that are going on here. I've been following this thread with interest and have noted that Chekov and others have asked for suggestions that might make Indymedia.ie more inclusive for women.

I think Indymedia.ie is currently like a disfunctional family. This thread bears this reasoning out. We need new blood and lots of it.

The poster ban has supposedly been lifted. Let's see some posters on lampposts. If we increase our Irish readership, we'll increase our number of contributers.

I'd be very happy to sling up some posters, but I'd like some ideas from current contributers before I do so. Indymeda is and should be more than just my view and definition of it. I'm afraid I cannot attend the upcoming meeting (Am in the middle of moving to Dublin - God help ye), and I'm sure this thread will put many people off from attending. So please let's set an agenda that can be realised. Let's make the meeting about improving and expanding Indymedia.ie and not about ourselves individually.

Okay, that's the sensible part of my post completed.

I'd like to propose that part of the upcoming meeting be devoted to burying the guidlines that filter posting to Indymedia and replacing them with concrete rules. I'm not going to refer to guidelines or posts that have been effected by them here, but I'm sure folks will know what I mean. I think that because the guidelines are open to personal interpretation, that they are legitimitely open to challenge. I think this is responsible for much of the 'bad blood' witnessed on this particular thread and I'm convinced that it's responsible for most of the longevity, the frustration encountered and the inability to solve some issues satisfactorally on the list itself.

Regards,
Seán

by Selfish Jean Wed Sep 13, 2006 14:49

"I'd like to propose that part of the upcoming meeting be devoted to burying the guidlines that filter posting to Indymedia and replacing them with concrete rules."

The last thing we need are immutable rules which can used as an excuse to curb debate. Sean seems to be unaware that the whole Open Publishing project is based on openness and inclusion rather than having rules carved in stone which limits freedom of expession.

Fair application of the existing GUIDELINES administered by fair editors will keep Indymedia safe from trolls.

by Billie Jean - Is Not My Lover Wed Sep 13, 2006 14:59

Selfish Jean - Break Into The Boys Club said
"James If you go to that url then it demands a password. Is it only open to members of the Boys Club?"

Selfish Jean is either just taking the piss here or is entirely unfamiliar with Indymedia and its mailing list system.

if Jean was truly interested and involved in indymedia he/she would not have made this comment

by Seán Ryan Wed Sep 13, 2006 14:59

Hi Jean.

The very reason I'm proposing rules replacing guidlines is because guidelines are curbing debate. Opinion overrules logic at times, because guidlines are rooted in opinion and not logic. Because of this an editor can end a DEBATE because of his opinion on a particular guideline. Of course this sometimes causes argument, flamewars and 'bad blood.'

So if you wish to show me the error of my ways Jean, I suggest you use logic rather than opinion to do so, that's what debating is about - proof - not conjecture.

by James Wed Sep 13, 2006 15:04

Okay, in order to reply properly, I’m going to look at the small print.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Selfish Jean: It is true. Robbie blocked Paula. No other editor openly did so. Please do not accuse me of lieing.

I think you’re mistaken, not lying. Anthony said above that it’d be good if folks could try not to look for the worst interpretation of what the other person is saying. I accept you’re genuine on this, but not that you’re correct.

Robbie blocked (past tense) Paula. You had written that He is the one editor who is blocking Paula Geraghty from becoming an editor. . That is the part which is not correct. He is not currently blocking her (present tense).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why haven't the other male editors proposed Paula to be an editor in the meantime? Is the Boys Club sticking together, not wanting to upset Robbie?

I don’t know, I don't think it hasn’t come up on the list recently. She could nominate herself, if she wished. A proposal was passed recently about new editors contributing a certain amount of work on the lists, including participation in discussion, reporting posts, proposing features and the like. If she fulfils that, then she’ll probably have a lot of support.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How in the name of rationality are we supposed to know whether someone else opposed Paula? They didnt openly do so at the time. Would you care to name this editor? Otherwise I must insist that it is indeed fair to "pick out Robbie".

Seedot, on the list, as well Anthony were wary of creating new editors when it wasn’t clear what they would do as an editor.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He did not give any real reasons for blocking Paula therefore I am entitled to presume he acted arbitrarily.

That’s your opinion, maybe it’s valid and you’re entitled to it. But it is only fair to acknowledge that others take a different view. The fact that people did agree with him undermines the argument that he acted arbitrarily.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He also hides posts which are critical of him, something which no other editor does. Even other editors have criticised him on the list for doing this. Hes certainly not infallible. Do you support him on the hiding of posts?

My knowledge of that particular thread is limited so it’s not very useful for me to express strong opinions about it. I do recall two editors giving general support to Robbie’s assessment of that thread, but would have to analyse it more fully before I’d say more. In general it’s probably a good principle for editors to not edit a story they are involved in and I think that’s what was agreed from that thread.

by fed up Wed Sep 13, 2006 15:11

Indymedia is not dysfunctional.

Let's call a spade a spade, the two or three people carping - esp Sean Ryan and Chris Murray - are flakes who would wreck indymedia if they ever donned an editorial cap. To be blunt, Sean has a cheek calling anyone or anything dysfunctional.

What's sad is that indymedia editors doing their best are being subjected to this harassment by a couple of flakes and cranks.

by Selfish Jean Wed Sep 13, 2006 15:11

But you are expressing opinions and I can only answer them with my opinions. Unless you believe that your opinions are possessed of an inner logic which defeats all other views expressed?

Even if there are rules they will still be interpeted differently by different people. Again there is no iron law of logic which proves that one persons interpetation of a rule is superior to anothers. It will just make it easier for the small minded to suppress debate.

by Another Robot Wed Sep 13, 2006 15:25

I also sent an email to Madam K and the editorial list earlier this evening in response to an abuse report that she made regarding Little Bird's accusation that Madam K was bending the truth. In it I stated that as a rule people should never presume malice as the motive for somebody else's actions or statements when the answer is more often than not simpler and more benign. IMO such a presumption says more about the accuser than the accusee.

The presumption of innocence does you credit. However, if Madam K or anyone else was not at the meeting then they shouldn't be asserting as truth something that they don't know. There are many types of lying and an assertion that you know that X happened when you weren't there is one of the ways of doing it. You can call it confusion or misunderstanding if you like, but I'd state it as a rule that if someone asserts knowlege they don't actually have then they are lying. Pretty typical of most of this thread.

by gob smacked Wed Sep 13, 2006 15:29

Chris M writes to the IMC-Ireland Mailing List
Sep 13 06:16

'I am writing to tell you that people have called me asking me if I am this or that pseudonom. I have used three and I hope positively, toe-tape, mother and my own name.

I try to provoke discussion and am genuinely concerned at lack of women. I never meant to be destructive or cause havoc, a lot of reaction to what I wrote was negative and I alos tried not to take it on. so am no longer and have not since yesterday printed on that thread.

I did 14 comments- reactions, clarifications and links. we may not agree, but I tried not to apart from concerns about hides etc not to be reactive. so apologies for what looks like a heavy workload.'

https://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/private/imc-ireland....html

by Terence Wed Sep 13, 2006 15:31

The present guidelines have evolved over the last 4 or 5 years. They are generally good and I can't recall any disagreement with any of the guidelines per se.

Interpretation of the guidelines is a different matter. But the same is true of 'concrete' laws, since judges after all essentially do that even if you don't agree with them in particular cases. The difference here is that we have a set of editors or should I call them administrators who through their numbers give greater diversity than one person alone. Decisions can of course be queried and appealed and often are, but as it stands it is the editors who make the decision. Now it might be suggested that this power should be devolved further and wider, but there are practicalities of actually trying to run the site. And as this is devolved further what mechanism should be used. Email or the website? How how deep should investigations go? And if email, how many are willing to follow the discussion? Do people want to deal with 50, 100 even 200 emails a day? And if a website, how do we know who isn't commenting on a decision using 3 or 4 different names. This would then mean you have to register and login to cut out this problem. Already now we would lose a lot of people on that transition?

An appeal to have a set of concrete rules based on logic is simply not going to work. What we have is pretty general principles. The more focused you become, then the more detail comes into sight and the set of rules to deal with all the real-life situations increases the number of them greatly. It has often been said that the more rules you have the more you need and this would be a classic example of it.

The appeal to apply logic should also be considered? What sort of logic? The logic of common sense? The logic of fairness or some kind of mathematical logic? Regarding the latter, I think it is a fair assumption that human affairs do not always follow this type of logic.

Thus the point I am making is that any proposal to scrap the guidelines with a new set of guidelines called rules or someother word, would also have to simultaneously look at the mechanism for applying them. And if we want improvement, then surely that system would have to be better than the current one?

by Chris Murray - the unmans Wed Sep 13, 2006 15:33

I have been called and asked a variety of questions re use of anons, so:

I have not engaged with this thread since yesterday.
I am sorry about some of the attacks on the editorial collective, by other people.
the 14 comments that I made (toe-tape, mother, chris murray) and maybe one other...
were directed at eliciting discussion on a serious issue, which I personally feel very strongly about.

I have found myself provoked and attacked, (on a few levels) and I never
wanted anyone attacked, but to seek clarification and debate on gender.

So will not engage with this thread again because it is getting negative.
I suggest people with concerns about issues of gender ake em to the meeting.
I have privately contacted the collective with a similar note.

by Seán Ryan Wed Sep 13, 2006 15:39

A guideline is used to help arrive at a logical conclusion, but is, in its final determination down to the discretion of its user.

A rule on the otherhand, if it is logically constructed, and a product of agreement between those who use it, allows a logical conclusion to be arrived at with no hinderence offered by opinion.

In this debate so far, the only part my opinion has played, has been in my choice of words and the order that I presented my argument with.

by Selfish Jean - Break Into The Clubhouse Wed Sep 13, 2006 15:47

"I do recall two editors giving general support to Robbie’s assessment of that thread, but would have to analyse it more fully before I’d say more."

My understanding is that while the editors in question did not have much sympathy for the comments hidden, they still disagreed with Robbie being the one to do the hiding.

" In general it’s probably a good principle for editors to not edit a story they are involved in and I think that’s what was agreed from that thread. "

But even after that he went on to hide more comments which disagreed with his views. One law for the editors. Another for the little people.

Regarding Paula, why didn't the other editors nominate her? Why didn't the Anti Sexist Libertarian Editors propose Paula? If there was no longer a block what was stopping them? After the way she was humiliated you could hardly expect her to nominate herself.

You say Cdot also opposed Paula. Did he oppose Robbies nomination? Apparently not.

by wageslave Wed Sep 13, 2006 15:49

I have to take issue with your earlier assertion that women with children just have to accept that they will not be allowed or able to participate in media to the same extent as men. That is tantamount to telling us to get back in the kitchen where we belong. This whole thing is supposed to be about the message, not the medium and every effort should be made to recognise the circumstances of every potential sort of editor - elderly people, people with disability, young adults, people with language difficulties, men and women. It is much to smug just to sit back and accept a status quo predicated on what the average white male is able to contribute (whether by time, inclination or aptitude) and then measure all other involvement against that standard. But that is exactly what is happening.


Aargh!! All I am saying is that Indy can't be expected to send around / hire a childminder / housekeeper / office temp so people can make posts.

of course indy RECOGNISES the lopsidedness of society but what do you suggest indy DO about that apart from write articles on it to highlight it??

Women end up doing more in the home. Thats not indy's fault. That's your marriage. Kick your husbands lazy ass and get him to do some housework and make some more free time for you!!

If you don't really have time to participate because of your own life choices ( job / family) , whether you are a man or a woman, then thats life. You make choices then deal with the consequences of your choices. It's not for others to facilitate it so you can have your cake and eat it. That's a selfish outlook

There are people you mentioned like the disabled who are special cases, in that they didn't choose to be disabled and need help to physically get their contributions on to indy. I have far more sympathy with them as it's not a case of life choices or just "wanting it all", it's an actual need.

So If your chosen life keeps you very busy then my advice is just Contribute what you can with the time available

If you want to contribute more then either rearrange things and make time if it's important to you or don't. However it's not fair to expect indy to sort that problem out for you.

There are people who make different life choices have more indy time as a result but they have none of the joys and compensations of a family / job / relationship whatever. Should they expect indy to arrange a life and a family for them too?I

by omg Wed Sep 13, 2006 15:52

THIS IS GAS, im relatively new here myself and im stunned at the shovelling of shit all over the shop

y dont you just take a vote, majority wins only, new editors installed on a majority only

that way if something fails by 1 vote with some1 objecting they wont be the subject of hatred and payback

you have a serious flaw at the moment as i see it

by gob'd Wed Sep 13, 2006 15:53

the following dialogue occurs many screens above.....

'toe-tape' offers link to imc-womyn mailing list

'mother' says 'kids will do that... run around and scream. thats what they do, brilliantly.'

'chris murray' writes back to 'toe-tape' and 'mother':
'toe-tape provvided a link to the imc womyn site. mother cos I have two kids and one is playing by me feet. with my jewellery box. other questions esp the above, written by a man. can be answered at what sounds like a very interesting meeting.'

by Plato Wed Sep 13, 2006 15:53

'A rule on the otherhand, if it is logically constructed, and a product of agreement between those who use it, allows a logical conclusion to be arrived at with no hinderence offered by opinion.'

But the person acting as an editor will use her/his opinion as to whether or not a certain comment us in breach of the rules. Another editor might well have another opinion on the subject. You will have the same situation as at present: if 2 editors think a comment should be unhidden and the original editor thinks it should stat hidden, then the majority prevail.

There will never be absolute agreement on what a rule means. In any case the Rules will be decided upon in the first place by a relatively small number of people. It is doubtful that even they would absolutely agree on what a rule means. The thousands who use Indymedia ertainly would not.

by Truth Wed Sep 13, 2006 15:54

So here we have Selfish Jean who has openly admitted to not reading the email archive spouting nonsense yet again. Why don't you stop wasting people's time and read the archives or is it one law for the Selfish Jean. Another for the little people.

by Selfish Jean - Wendyhouse Wed Sep 13, 2006 15:59

At least I am attempting to make some contribution to this debate. You are just knocking anyone who exposes the Boys Club. Why not address the questions I raised instead of abusing me. If I am wrong then show me why I am wrong.

by fed up Wed Sep 13, 2006 16:00

You're wrong. There is no serious problem. This is a couple of people stirring the shit. They represent nobody other than themselves - two or three people - and imho are head cases. Don't believe me? Do a search on Chris Murrays and Sean Ryans varied contributions to this site - Sean's "philosophical" ramblings (under 'Opinion', I believe) are well worth a squint.

This is not a crisis in indymedia. It's a couple of cranks disrespecting the integrity and hard work of the editors. The issue regarding women's participation is a very serious one but is being used by Chris to pursue God knows what vendetta. There's no coherent sense to her arguments.

Am I engaging in character assassination here? Totally guilty. I put my hands up to it. I think these people, from long experience with them, are cranks.

by Seán Ryan Wed Sep 13, 2006 16:03

I see where you're coming from Terrence and I agree with you to a point.

I think folks should have to register in order to use the list. I think all anonymous posting to the list (other than reports that highlight abusive posts) should be stopped.

I don't want to comment on actual examples because I don't want to continue arguments from the list itself to the newswire. But I will say this: If guidelines and the way they have been applied recently were applied to older news items and comments - most of Indy would dissappear.

I understand that the guidelines have evolved over the years and that they represent the collective and the collective mindset. But it is individuals who must apply them.

If I had my way I'd allow for only one rule. An editior some time back gave an excellent definition of Indymedia. He called it a tool for activists. My rule would be: If a post is truthful and furthers the cause of activists (yeah I know there'd have to be a big debate as to what defines an activist) and is news then it stays, if it hinders activists and has no news content or is untruthful it gets hidden (peer review could discern untruthful posts and then the lie and subsequent review could be hidden). Please note my reference to news content, this allows for an activist to be challenged. And it allows that only news remains on Indymedia. I think the guidelines go some way to achieving this, but we still have a long way to go. I'm pretty sure also that 'my' rule would have to be fleshed out a lot before we arrived at a working model. I don't want to write a mini novel on this thread to do so. But I will suggest this: Decide the purpose of Indymedia and then backward engineer this into a set of working rules. I believe the guidelines have derrived from working Indy and have allowed us to define it. I reckon it's now time to make Indy consistant.

by Seán Ryan Wed Sep 13, 2006 16:09

Fed up, I don't think you are engaging in character assassinations here. I think you are engaging in masturbation. You are only furthering your own ends and adding nothing to the debate.

by The Truth Wed Sep 13, 2006 16:20

I am on the editorial list and I have followed all the emails, unlike yourself. I am therfore more informed then you are on the subject, yet it is you who are making outrageous and completely false allegations. You are a crank, a troll and haven't even bothered to research anything that you are talking about. You should be ashamed of yourself, indymedia is not a boys club yet you outrageously call it such in your name/organisation. People like you are the problem with indymedia. There is a gender issue with indymedia alright but it is being used by you and a small number of others in false allegations of sexism. If people like you became an editor this site would fall to pieces as nobody would want to engage in a site with cranks such as yourself. Now go and do the most basic thing like sign up and read the archives before trolling.

by wageslave Wed Sep 13, 2006 16:22

what would you both think of the idea of adding a few paragraphs to explain the "sense and spirit" of each of the guidelines to assist editors in their application.

Sometimes guidelines are applied in ways that I would have thought are not in the true spirit which was originally intended.

fuzziness in rules allows for wide interpretation and hence abuse. IMHO such abuses have occurred.

Such clarification of the "spirit " of the guideline might be helpful.

by Selfish Jean - Give The Boys Some New Toys Wed Sep 13, 2006 16:29

"it is you who are making outrageous and completely false allegations."

What false allegations? The editor in question for no discernable reason blocked Paula from becoming an editor. No other editor openly did so at the time. He had only just been confirmed as editor and his first action was to prevent Paula from becoming an editor. Even those who defend him do not deny that this happened.

by The Truth - Throw Jean out Wed Sep 13, 2006 16:36

First of all I am not an editor, I am on the editorial list. It is very easy to subscribe to this list and all the emails to this list are archived. You haven't bothered to either subscribe to the list or to check through the archives despite requests to do so, and you are still refusing to do so. Yet despite this you continue to throw out false allegations, this is called trolling. Go and sign up, check the archives and then come forward with any problems you have. I doubt you will do this as you seem only intent on trolling.

by wageslave Wed Sep 13, 2006 16:52

I suggest that it be made mandatory to register before you are allowed to post comments This might ultimately cut out lots of crap, and ease the workload

you register
an automated email is sent out to the email you gave containing a confirming link
you click the link and you are registered along with your email address

The site could be read without registering but to post comments would require you to register

this system seems to work well for other online communities and cuts down on abuses. persistent trolls and spammers can be banned outright rather doing it on a per wonky post basis. Also, It makes it difficult to masquerade as another user

what do people think??

by Another Robot Wed Sep 13, 2006 16:58

fuzziness in rules allows for wide interpretation and hence abuse.
There's little fuzziness in the editorial guidelines. They're pretty specific. Too much verbiage can cause confusion. How much of legal practise is understandable by people that have not trained in it extensively? Entire university departments make a living out of interpretation of e.g. the constitution of the USA.

IMHO such abuses have occurred.
Luckily there's a redress for that. You get to be able to post to the editorial list specifics of that and then they make a decision. Unless they're all monsters that are very different from other people then there'll be a variety of opinion there about whether or not an abuse has occurred. It all takes place in the open and there's no way that a secret hiding by one editor can happen. If they don't agree with you then you'd just have to accept that all those other people that have spent time thinking about it and have tried to come up with fair interpretations all disagree with you and they may be wrong, but it is more likely that you are.

Such clarification of the "spirit " of the guideline might be helpful.
Or it could open up further problems and lead to very complicated discussions over the impact of the placement of particular commas. Any rules, guidelines, clarifications etc will always be interpreted by an advanced monkey trying to do the best they can. If the current group of monkeys seems to biased one way or another TO YOU, then YOU should enter the group and change it. Don't expect to just walk in and say "Hey I disagree and I don't know what I'm doing and I haven't read any of the debates about interpretation of the guidelines and I can't read or write emails anyway and I can't ....". Make an effort to learn how to work the machine, how to communicate and take time to make sure that you aren't just shouting at other people. If you do that then you'll be competent and no one can reasonably deny you what could be an important role in changing how things are done.

Otherwise it's all just waffle and expecting to be privileged just because you disagree.

by wtf Wed Sep 13, 2006 16:59

u WANT ME SOCIAL security number as well wageslave?

hehe

nah i think that makes sense really, but you might actually be creating more work there not less, i dunno maybe some IT person can advise on the process?

by Chekov Wed Sep 13, 2006 17:00

Incidentally, to anybody who is still reading this sorry sorry thread. For once we have relaxed our editorial guidelines on the site. This has enabled indymedia readers to see for themselves the sort of shit that we have to put up with on the editorial lists. The various attacks on indymedia and its editors on this page come from 4 people who are habitual posters to the editorial lists. The only real difference is that on the lists they are mostly confined to a single identity, whereas here they are posting under various different names, and even talking to their own sock puppets. It's pathetic behaviour and its why we need to tighten up the running of the lists.

by pat c Wed Sep 13, 2006 17:10

I agree with it in principle. But see some problems. There are those who would register with multiple email addresses. Unfortunately this would happen. Would you ban an ip address from having more than one user? That would rule out internet cafes, posting from work through a proxy, and even wf broadband in some cases.

To deal with the multiple email address problem the Fortean Times Message Board* now doesnt accept free email address registrations. There were some really nasty troll wars and on the FTMB you get real Trolls. Dont know if it would be a good idea for Indy to go down that road.

Maybe a plain registration system. It would make it that bit more difficult for those who have totally destructive intent.

* http://www.forteantimes.com

by Makhoite Midget Wed Sep 13, 2006 17:14

" It's pathetic behaviour and its why we need to tighten up the running of the lists. "

You sound just like John Reid: You must take away our liberties in order to keep us free. How will you tighten it up, will it now in the interests of IMC Security be illegal to disagree with an editor?

by wageslave Wed Sep 13, 2006 17:56

The set of guidelines is short and not at all comparable in girth to the US constitution.
Training would not be required to read a page or two of text
Thats the perfect example of a STRAW MAN argument

"too much verbiage"
Hmmm, a short concise description of the spirit of each guideline would not be "too much verbiage" IMHO

FYI I have entered the list. I am trying to help and have been highlighting abusive posts as well as " just waffling and expecting to be privileged just because I disagree"
I think it's clear to readers that I am just trying to offer suggestions and ideas to try and improve things and your description of my contribution is insulting and unpleasant. Disagree by all means but do try and mask your contempt a little.

It is clear to me that there is great defensiveness and resistance to any suggestion of change by the "robots"

In theory it sounds good to leave things as they are but in practice it is evident to many on indy that licence is taken with the guidelines and editors are quite nasty replying to anyone who dares to speak up outside their sandbox

Might i add the suggestion that there be a code of behaviour used in replying to people by editors. Manners and politeness are not optional when dealing with the public in any job.

Many editors comments are disparaging and derisory. This is hardly constructive on a thread left open to allow open discussion of the problems in indy. If i as a male feel this then I'm sure females feel it even more so. I bet this contributes to the feeling that many women have that they are treated meanly.

Editors should not have carte blanche to ridicule people who speak up. For people who spend their time removing abusive posts to not apply the same standards to their own posts when they engage in discussion with people on the lists or on this thread is hypocrisy.

by Wicked Witch/Lost Cause/Miriam Wed Sep 13, 2006 17:56

Could have sworn I posted this message a few minutes ago but it doesnt seem to have arrived.

James

I didn't mean to imply earlier (way back up this list now) that people are positively prevented from posting to the editorial list when they want to raise an issue of concern to them. To be quite clear, what I am saying is that if you cant go to meetings or the stuff you want to say cannot be said in a few lines or paragraphas, and if some editors dont like what you are saying, you are frequently accused of 'disrupting a working list' and told that your emails are too long and troublesome to read. I have to rely on that list to raise issues of concern and have always tried to do it economically. There have been about four or five discussions where I had a lot to say and Ive been caricatured for taking the time to do that. Chekov takes his time to explain things, often at length and yet accuses me of disrupting the list with long emails for doing the same.

Wageslave

You are back in the dark ages. Its long recognised that childbearing and rearing has a disproportionate impact on women's ability to participate in community/social and political life. That's not a choice, its a consequence of social structures which fail to recognise that childbearing benefits everyone: men, women children and society as a whole, and that women should not have to bear undue consequences for their biological definition in the overall scheme of things. That's how concepts such as flexi-time, job-sharing and part-time work came about. For crying out loud, where have you been?

by Chekov Wed Sep 13, 2006 18:01

You wrote "Chekov takes his time to explain things, often at length and yet accuses me of disrupting the list with long emails for doing the same.

Please back that up with a single example of me doing such a thing. I believe you are just re-writing history again and making stuff up.

by wageslave Wed Sep 13, 2006 18:01

And people do not do it purely to benefit society. They do it for their own personal reasons.

by Another Robot Wed Sep 13, 2006 18:05

Disagree by all means but do try and mask your contempt a little.

There was no contempt in what I wrote and I felt none while writing it. I have pointed out the problems with what I saw as your suggestions. You are now attempting to stifle my disagreement with you. Please desist, leave out the personal element and deal with the arguments. I'd agree that the current guidelines are concise and clear and can argue that attempts to "flesh them out" would make them more confusing. The guidelines are simply guidelines for the editors to apply, they are not proscriptive, exhaustive or all encompassing.

As regards your suggestions of logins and registration, these are all easily circumventable and add the problem of making people whistle-blowing or posting from work trackable.

by wageslave Wed Sep 13, 2006 18:22

ok sorry, on re-reading, perhaps I was a little hard on you but i was also thinking of this snippet from chekovs post

"Incidentally, to anybody who is still reading this sorry sorry thread. For once we have relaxed our editorial guidelines on the site. This has enabled indymedia readers to see for themselves the sort of shit that we have to put up with on the editorial lists."

Why is it such a sorry sorry thread. Sure there is some bickering but It is obvious that people needed something like this thread to express their views / feelings. It should happen more often. There should be a regular "let off steam at indy" thread. It might have the effect of people appreciating the editors more for their openness.

AnotherRobot, i agree about the whistleblower / work aspect but I also think the extra step of registering would put off a lot of casual trolls

by Chekov Wed Sep 13, 2006 18:36

Why is it such a sorry sorry thread. Sure there is some bickering but It is obvious that people needed something like this thread to express their views / feelings. It should happen more often. There should be a regular "let off steam at indy" thread. It might have the effect of people appreciating the editors more for their openness.

I called it a sorry sorry thread because there has been so little constructive input. You are one of the only commenters who has tried in any way to engage constructively. Apart from you and one or two others, all the critical comments have been from people who simply want to throw a bit of mud at indymedia editors in public. For example, Miriam accuses me of things and simply refuses to provide any substantiation. She also continues in her efforts to rewrite the past and paint herself as a victim of bullying when the public record - and her own admissions on this score - are entirely clear and unambiguous. As I said above she has engaged in far worse behaviour on the lists for the last year and has viciously attacked almost everybody on the list who has disagreed with her. Pat C throws a bit of abuse at a particular indymedia editor due to a stupid fight he had on the editorial list some months back. I have absolutely no clue what chris's angle is but she has aired a whole heap of unsubstantiated and scurrilous claims about us doctoring stuff and being sexist. Iosaf throws a bit of mud and runs away when called to back it up.

This stuff is what I call sorry. It's a shame to air it all in public, but hopefully having done so will give the editors the impetus to deal with it properly and stop allowing such anti-social egoists to dominate our working time.

by Miriam Wed Sep 13, 2006 18:37

Here is a perfect example of the sort of lashing out that you resort to when you dont like what is said to you:

'but pretty much everybody who has ever disagreed with her has been the target of lengthy and bitter missives.'

Not only is that untrue, it is sarcastic and intended to suggest that the fact I have gone to the trouble to explain what I mean thoroughly is a problem. And it is one of many comparable remarks that have been made to me by a number of people. As to bitterness, just take one, long, cold look at some of your posts to this thread.

Sorry, sorry thread indeed.

I have no monoply on showing anger in these exchanges Chekov, so stop acting is if there were some separate, superior justification that excuses you when you do it. If I am abusive and bitter then so are you. You dont see it but you are extraordinarily proprietorial about this website. I can understand that up to a point, given the extent of your contribution to it, but you ought to watch out for that if you really mean us to take Indymedia.ie in the way you say you do. And there is the kernel of the problem, the disconnect between what this collective says it is and what it actually is. There is a lot of overlap, for which you are all due acknowledgement and thanks but you are too used to the view from the inside looking out and dont realise any more what the view is like from out here. We're trying to tell you.

Get your head around some facts;

I like Indymedia

I dislike its sexism and will complain about that, as is my right, so long as I believe I have justification for it. You have discriminated against me and I am not going to pretend otherwise. What would you do if you believed you were in that position? I'm well aware of the 'over-my-dead-body' position that you and others have adopted about me.

by pat c Wed Sep 13, 2006 18:38

Loss of power corrupts absolutely.

One of the problems is that SOME of the existing editors fear that they will lose power if the project is included to involve more people. They are not misogynist but easily fall into misogynist ways by keeping out anyone who seems bolshie. So far most of the "bolshie" prospective editors have been women.

Editors need to realise that time and things move on. There comes a time to step down. In other Indymedias editors regularly step down or are rotated. So why not in Indymedia.ie? Two of the editors have already stepped down. Maybe its time for some of the other Old Boys to follow suit.

by pat c Wed Sep 13, 2006 18:48

"Pat C throws a bit of abuse at a particular indymedia editor due to a stupid fight he had on the editorial list some months back. "

I did no such thing. I mentioned that one editor had blocked a woman from becoming an editor. If you see that as abuse then you have abandoned libertarianism.

You also seem to think you have it all sussed out as to who is posting under what identity. Some of us who post here do so through proxies. Some of which have over 1,000 users. Watch out readers, Big Brother has the monitoring system turned on and is checking ip addresses.

Keeping the monitoring system on for a long time is not a good idea. You are gathering information which would be of use to the State.

by Selfish Jean - Its A Boys Club Wed Sep 13, 2006 19:08

"And there is the kernel of the problem, the disconnect between what this collective says it is and what it actually is."

You put your finger on it Miriam. But the editors dont see the disconnect because they live in a consensual reality where they do no wrong. If you know your motives are beyond reproach then obviously anyone who disagrees with you is at best a nuisance and at worse a troll. If they cannot be won over they must be expelled or driven out.

Its unlikely this battle will be won at either of the upcoming meetings. The meetings themselves cannot decide anything no matter how many attend. All suggestions must come back to a meeting of the existing editors. Any one editor in this Coven of 13 can block proposals from the meeting.

The answer may well lie in founding a second Indymedia.

by Troll Wed Sep 13, 2006 19:14

I wholeheartedly endorse the founding of a second indymedia.

I nominate ChrisM for write the guidelines, Miriam for outreach, Iosaf for tech support and PatC for chairing their meetings. Should be a laugh!

by Selfish Jean - Boys Wont Rule Forever Wed Sep 13, 2006 19:22

How many women editors will you have after the meetings? Do you think the complaints to Global Indymedia are going to go away? Much as you might like to, you cant make dissidents vanish. There will be a reckoning.

by Chekov Wed Sep 13, 2006 19:30

Here is a hastily selected list of abuse that you have directed towards editors in the last year. I have only spent about 20 minutes looking and I know there is a whole lot more out there. In contrast you will not be able to find anything remotely similar aimed towards you.

To Risible (only a few days after first signing up to the list)
https://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/private/imc-ireland....html
"Dont you just love yourself! Obviously, you are short on other opportunties for getting some worthwhile thrills. I can assure you, I am not alone in having this view of you. Go and do your own research...Spot the difference, dearie? Now go and find something useful to do with yourself, for a change."

To Paula (a blatantly sexist comment)
"Maybe if you'd followed it all, you'd be better qualified to comment. Funny, I've not seen you commenting in these discussions before. Im sure it'll keep you popular with the boys. Mind you dont go having any opinions of your own any time, though. "
https://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/private/imc-ireland....html

You later acknowledged that you were completely wrong about this entire episode which dominated our working lists for over 3 months:
"With hindsight I also realise that several people had tried to explain this to me but because I had not actually seen the evidence, I failed to see what the situation truly was. I was effectively supporting a long-term abuser of the site"
https://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/private/imc-ireland....html

Despite this apology, in which you also withdrew your candidacy for editor "the idea of me being an editor might be best put aside for a long while, I think." you have now re-written the history to your original argument - that you were the victim of sexism.

The debate about Paula's appointment:

To Padraic:
"I am tired of being lectured by approved editors that I shouldnt trouble my head about being an editor myself (and I dont want to be one at the moment btw)and understand that my writing is what really counts. Bollox. And how disgustingly condescending and smug."
https://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/private/imc-ireland....html

To Robbie:
"This is all so insufferable, pompous and self-referential that it is embarrassing. Nobody subjected you to this sort of micrscopic nit-picking. You'd think you'd have a litte more modesty about your position in all this. Your behaviour is ten times more concerning than any technical or other considerations that may attach to Paula. Spotlight on that, please, other editors? What to do when one person parks himself like a big fat pudding in the middle of a debate and is allowed to obstruct the progress of others? Frankly, I think that on current evidence, Robbie's approval was a monumental mistake."
https://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/private/imc-ireland....html

More accusations of Paula "playing to the boys"

"Paula was right when she called it the glass ceiling. And I'm sorry to say this Paula, but while it may ingratiate you with the guys to drop that charge, that is nevertheless what is going on here."
https://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/private/imc-ireland....html

More abuse of Robbie:
"Patronsing and sexist, as ever."
https://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/private/imc-ireland....html

Your most recent flame-war in June

More abuse of risible
"Im not sure about Risible - whose attitude and manners I find arrogant, self-important and bullying."
https://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/private/imc-ireland....html

and more
"In short, I have done massively more than many of the editors on this site at the point at which they were accepted as editors. You have led an aggressive and sexist campaign against me based on personal dislike and a difference of perspective."
https://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/private/imc-ireland....html

Rewriting history:
"In any case I was first nominated last Autumn before any of this arose and risible was allowed to block me because he didnt agree with something I said." (note the apology and retraction above)
https://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/private/imc-ireland....html

When Elaine disagreed with you
"Well I dont have that personal advantage and I hope its clear that I didnt intend my remark about you (superflous in hindsight) to imply that I was representing your views. You are of course entitled to your views which will be very popular with the boys here and and which can only serve you well if you ever change your mind and choose to get involved nore directly. I sincerely hope you will, incidentally."
https://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/private/imc-ireland....html

A response from Elaine:

https://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/private/imc-ireland....html

"Insinuations of this sort usually come from cynical sexists who try to devalue a person's worth by suggesting an improper relationship. I am sure many women know what that feels like but I was a bit surprised to hear it from another woman. ...If I disagree with what you hold to betruth, I am clearly at fault. Biased, in your words, prone to 'misunderstanding' and 'inaccurate interpretation', and glory be, I
'inferred a personal significance' for myself. Imagine a woman doing that? Personal significance indeed, shocking. Try asking not to be dragged into someone else's act, used as a stick to beat someone with, misrepresented whether consciously or otherwise. When I pointed that out to you, you insulted and demeaned me, but no sincere apology was forthcoming."

Attacking C.
This is a classic example of the rude and elitist response that is underpining certain editorial contributions to this discussion. An nasty in-joke reply for the benefit of your clique to a perfectly civil question. Im sure youre brilliant on code, C., but there are lot of other things that you aint so good at all. Like spotting the contradictions in your own arguments for instance.
https://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/private/imc-ireland....html

More abuse of Elaine:
https://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/private/imc-ireland....html

Even Pat C. gets some
"Sadly, you bring a partially sexist attitude to teh great points you make by remarking on my 'tone..'You want me, as a woman, to conform to your notions of acceptable engagement and are not applying the standard evenly. ."

Elaine responds:
Part of the reason I didn't engage with the list before was due to your irrational, insulting postings. You do not represent all the women on this list, you certainly do not represent me. Take your medication, have a week off - do what ever it takes to get back a sense of perspective. Your rantings are the type of nonsense that get women a bad name. I am not your analyst and this is why I didn't go in for social work as a career. I am not trained to deal with this level of idiocy. No matter what is said to you your reaction is aggressive (not assertive), insulting and hyper sensitive. Any male who disagrees with you is automatically labeled a sexist and the integrity of any woman who challenges that is called into question."
https://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/private/imc-ireland....html

by Dave Wed Sep 13, 2006 19:31

Miriam, Chris M... you are embarrassing yourselves and maybe you should set up a separate indymedia , at the minimum it will save the rest of us having to read your pathethic ramblings, in fact, maybe i am just as bad for entertaining you both... please please go away

by Miriam Wed Sep 13, 2006 19:55

It confirms no more than I have said myself - yes I have been angry. But you leave out all of the other side of the discussion - the things that were said to me which provoked those responses - so it doesnt count for much, to anyone of reasonable, fair judgment. It's pathetic. All you do here is confirm an obsession with proving that I am a bad person. I had already posted several of these so-called examples of my outrageous 'abuse' elsewhere and I have to tell you that, they didnt prove what you would like to think they did to people who are not blinkered as you are.. Of course I was honest enough to include examples of my anger alongside those of others, unlike you. That's called honesty. The people who are making fools of themselves here (Dave) are the sad editors who cannot come to terms with the idea that they are not infallible.

by Chekov Wed Sep 13, 2006 20:08

I invited you to put forward your side of the story and you are free to do so. You have been invited to put forward evidence of the abuse that you claim to have received many many times but you never do. You much prefer to simply throw out broad accusations which are impossible to refute without taking a huge amount of time to trawl through the evidence. It's a fundamentally dishonest way of arguing but it's one that you have prefected.

In all the enormous number of flame wars that I have observed you taking part in, I have pretty much always tried to mediate. However, your abuse of Elaine and your refusal to apologise for your sexist abuse of her when you were called on it by pretty much everybody made me come to my senses. You are the worst bully I've ever come across and you will use whatever you have to hand with absolutely no principle. Because we are a collective who do our very best to counter sexism, that's your weapon of choice against us when you don't get your way. But as the quotes to Paula and Elaine above show, you are the worst offendor in that regard. What was their abuse that prompted your reaction? They opened their mouths and disagreed with you - nothing more. It's all there in black and white.

Finally, isn't it interesting the way that as soon as I revealed to both miriam and pat that we had been monitoring their sock-puppetry on this thread, me and my power-lust suddenly became the big problem. What integrity. Of course we want to work with you, youse are such a delight to have around.

by pat c Wed Sep 13, 2006 20:15

"Finally, isn't it interesting the way that as soon as I revealed to both miriam and pat that we had been monitoring their sock-puppetry on this thread, me and my power-lust suddenly became the big problem. "

Poor Chekov, everyone is plotting against him. No Chekov, actually its when you made those claims that I decided it was time to fight back. Ever hear of that? You attack someone and they respond.

I have better things to do with my time than to deal with your rameis. But if you want a battle royal here then you will get it. I dont really think you are that power crazed but maybe you could do with a rest. Why not step down for a while?

by Troll Wed Sep 13, 2006 20:18

It's amusing to see ChrisM and Miriam suddenly "declaring all "when they realise the jig is up. ChrisM openly and honestly confessing to her identities, then Miriam suddenly posting as WickedWitch/LostCause/Miriam ! Unfortunately for PatC he seems not to have realised the situation as quickly as the others.

by reader Wed Sep 13, 2006 20:21

How many people are in the collective (ie dictatorship of doers)... not just simply editor there are a number of of women in this intangible 'collective' and this should be the step at which people get, feel and are involved... not editorship.

indy.ie posssible and half done projects should be more visible.

I wonder have the two women blocked for reason of lack of involvement editorial actions and simple html have actually done anything about this themselves since the last meeting.

by redjade - just 1 editor Wed Sep 13, 2006 20:48

'How many people are in the collective (ie dictatorship of doers)'

Good question - I don't think it can be quantified exactly. Thats not evading the question, its just not known who or how people 'identify' with indymedia. Many activists use it regularly to get info, to add info, to comment about info - I'd say that makes them 'indymedia.' But I would also say that just being a regular reader makes a participant as well. It is also ever more difficult to judge as there are somewhere to close to 200,000 people coming to the site each month. We need a good survey, me thinks.

'...the two women blocked...'

Please, it is very easy to forget or just to have missed the simple fact repeated only a few times on this thread that there were also two men rejected and/or delayed, as well.

But two answer your question from my own perspective, I'd say that one of the women has not had much ability to be online, and another has been more involved than some current editors.

by Miriam Wed Sep 13, 2006 21:54

Lets get those blocking statistics into perspective:

Per centage of men proposed but blocked: 12%

Per centage of women proposed but blocked: 100%

All of the women proposed so far have been blocked.

by redjade Wed Sep 13, 2006 22:09

statistics mean nothing without context and information.

100% of all proposed editors have been stopped/delayed.
since whatever date I cannot remember at the moment

Struggle as you may to make this only a Male vs Female issue, you are quite simply factually and historically wrong, Miriam.

and Miriam, its all on the record.
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-ireland...orial

You can read it if you like
the 'Global IMC' can read it.
anyone can read it.

by Miriam Wed Sep 13, 2006 22:19

You seriously need to calm down. Just look again at what you have written:

"I invited you to put forward your side of the story and you are free to do so. You have been invited to put forward evidence of the abuse that you claim to have received many many times but you never do. You much prefer to simply throw out broad accusations which are impossible to refute without taking a huge amount of time to trawl through the evidence. It's a fundamentally dishonest way of arguing but it's one that you have prefected.

In all the enormous number of flame wars that I have observed you taking part in, I have pretty much always tried to mediate. However, your abuse of Elaine and your refusal to apologise for your sexist abuse of her when you were called on it by pretty much everybody made me come to my senses. You are the worst bully I've ever come across and you will use whatever you have to hand with absolutely no principle. Because we are a collective who do our very best to counter sexism, that's your weapon of choice against us when you don't get your way. But as the quotes to Paula and Elaine above show, you are the worst offendor in that regard. What was their abuse that prompted your reaction? They opened their mouths and disagreed with you - nothing more. It's all there in black and white.

Finally, isn't it interesting the way that as soon as I revealed to both miriam and pat that we had been monitoring their sock-puppetry on this thread, me and my power-lust suddenly became the big problem. What integrity. Of course we want to work with you, youse are such a delight to have around. "

I have not the slightest idea what you are talking about here. This is the second time onthis thread that you have come with alarmingly fanciful ideas about what I am doing. What the hell has Pat got to do with it? He seems to be entirely innocent of anything he is accused of by you, from what I can see. What did you 'reveal' to us? Where and when? Ive not followed all thats been said here today, I admit, but whatever you are talking about its got nothing to do with me. I had no idea anything was 'revealed' to me. Jesus Chekov, get a grip, man. I put my aliases down to make absolutely sure that people knew who I was on this thread. I did so in complete and blissful ignorance of your raging suspicions about who was doing what. I actually thought that those aliases were humourously transparent when I posted them. Im pretty sure most people spotted them for the jokes they were. WTF, Chekov? Baffled again, sorry.

This all amounts to nothing more than absolute proof of an obsession with prooving me a bad person. It doesnt help anything and above all it is not about the issues. It is nothing more than your intemperate and highly subjective projection of ill motive on my part. And the fact is you are wrong about that. You have ample evidence of the goodwill I have toward Indymedia. Anyone who wants to find out whether I am nice or nasty can do what you have obviously spent a lot of time doing today: trawl the editorial archives for evidence of who said what to who and when. I can tell them all now, I lost my temper a few times out of frustration, no doubt about that and it probably isnt pretty. Mea culpa. Big bad me, badder than an old tin can... And if, having done that, you come back here to tell me I was really rather rude, Ill be very much inclined to agree. But I will still tell you that I believe that I (and others) have been discriminated by this editorial collective. And that is the reason for my rudeness and badness.

So let me make it easy for everyone: I'm a shockin' unholy person. Terrible.

Now can we get back to the issues? Please?

by bringiton Thu Sep 14, 2006 01:10

"I nominate ChrisM for write the guidelines, Miriam for outreach, Iosaf for tech support and PatC for chairing their meetings. Should be a laugh!"

Even with iosaf's help i doubt is Chris will be able to navigate around the site. Maybe they could invite Con Carroll and his friend Paddy (The gay anti-abortionist who never puts any spaces between words) to help out.

They should get plenty of articles - there are any number of places that stuff will be copied and pasted from, plenty of rightwing nutjobs and 9-11 lunacy to whet iosaf's appetite.

by Sally Creagh - personal capacity Thu Sep 14, 2006 01:20

I am a reader of this stie and occasional contributor. I have no axe to grind. My view is that Chris M and Miriam are not worth engaging with and are distracting from the main purpose of the website. Why is anybody bothering? No sane feminist would take them seriously and feminism is not about acting like a victim, personalising everything and whingeing every time you are challenged about something. They simply cannot stand anybody to disagree with what they say. They are narcissists.

I am stunned by the crackpots who seem to be trying to take over this site and disrupt it, not only them but Sean Ryan and a couple of others too. Maybe it'd be better to ban them. As someone who reads and uses this site but has no involvement in its running, I think all they are doing is dragging it down. They should not be allowed to take over a resource that is invaluable to activists in Ireland. If these people are allowed to air their eccentric, self-regarding, self-deluded, Walter Mitty type ramblings and crackpot conspiracy theories here anymore the whole indymedia project in Ireland will become a laughing stock. I think they're too idiotic to be agents provocateurs but some of their online behaviour would seem very similar to people who have that function, people who want the online activist community to implode and want to discredit feminism (as if there's not enough of that about already). My advice is just tell them to get lost. Their behaviour has a destructive, embittered air about it - these people are vampires and energy suckers.

by Terence Thu Sep 14, 2006 01:39

It strikes me that a certain amount of the discussion over the role of editors within Indymedia may well stem from non-recognition of the various tasks required to make Indymedia work. So I am providing a rough summary here and some commentary after some of them in order to show that not everything revolves around the magic password

Actions/Work required to make the site work.

1) People to write stories / news / events -anyone can do this.
2) People to add comments -anyone can do this.
3) People to moderate by applying the guidelines
a) Anyone can report what they think breaks the guidelines easily via the red button.
b) Only 'editors' can hide any material that breaches the guidelines
c) This is carried out chiefly via the editorial list. Generally one must deal with from 50 to 200 emails per day.

4) Deal with email requests to IMC Ireland and Editorial Lists
a) There is a steady but relatively low level stream of emails to the list requesting all sorts of things.
b) Anyone on the list can reply, but they may not claim to be an editor if they are not an editor.

5) People to write Features. A feature requires at least 3 votes by editors.
a) Anyone can suggest a story to be made a feature. They are usually 90% of an existing story.
b) Anyone can provide any additional background material, summaries and links
c) Only editors can make a story a feature and do the mockup to add any extra html and pictures.
d) Much of this derives from the fact that allowing public users to add their own html to mock up a story to a feature is a security feature, because enabling html to the public opens the door to spambots and hackers and other forms of website attack. Additionaly incorrect and unclosed html tags would break the display of the site on that story

6) Maintaining the website on an operational basis.
a) This is carried by techies and who may or may not be editors also.
b) Ideally requires knowledge of website hosting, some database experience and some knowhow of Oscailt. This is a low level activity though
c) For certain types of problems more extensive techie experience will be needed.

7) Maintaining and writing new code and bugfixes within Oscailt.
The code is freeware and you can download it from SourceForge. (Click on Oscailt logo for details)
a) Again anyone can install this on their site, home PC and fix bugs, add features etc and propose to the tech list. Requires a fair amount of programming knowledge
b) Document the Oscailt code.
c) Propose and discuss and implement new technical features. Low level of activity at the moment.

8) Maintaining the various Indymedia Ireland Mailing lists.
a) Main job is to remove spam and forward the rest of the email onwards to the list.
b) Deal with occaissional admin related requests
c) Carried out by semi-technical people. Currently carried out by an editor.

9) Raising and donating funds.
10) Indymedia Print Activity
11) Films nights. -You do not have to be an editor to organise or take part in this.
12) Surveys -Anyone can do this
13) Outreach. You do not have to be an editor to organise or take part in this.
a) This can be done by various means, such as telling others about it. Emailing, creating posters, leaflets to give out at demos etc, website links, etc etc

14) Photography. -Anyone can post images up alongside their stories or in with comments.
a) Bandwidth restrictions mean a limit on the image size needs to be set in order to limit this.

15) Organise real world meetings.

I am certain that I have missed some other vital things, but I think it should be clear to people that alot of various activities are required to bring you Indymedia Ireland. I guess it would be fair to say the bulk of the physical work is the writing of stories and the applying of the guidelines and dealing with abuse.

So you can see that there are many ways to help out in terms of one's abilities.

The issue though that is central to the heated part of the debate is of course who holds power, what power and how it is exercised and people are suggesting this power resides with the possession of an editorial password and the vote that comes with it. What is not readily acknowledged though is that all editorial actions are on the public record via the newswire email list and any action to edit, hide, or delete a story generates an automatic notification to the newswire. The mainstream media do not even come anywhere remotely near this type of transparency.

Regarding power and votes etc, it should be clear that day to day activities like whether to hide some contentious story or comment should remain with the site editors, as one cannot expect that we can wait to consult the wider community of Indymedia. Again though I stress that these actions taken though go on the public record.

Then there are decisions about the wider Indymedia collective and so forth which would be all medium to longer term goals, actions and or decisions. This will hopefully be addresed at the meeting and a practical working mechanism will perhaps be proposed that can deal with this. Since real world meetings had fallen by the wayside in recent times, this has meant that these decisions automatically fell back on the editors. In practice though very few longer term actions have been carried out largely because people did not have time to do them.

Hopefully the above has helped to clarify to some degree what any involvement means and the different levels and aspects to it. Thus if you want or plan to help, you should consider what and where you think you can make a difference and what it is you want to do? And why?

by Truth dawns Thu Sep 14, 2006 06:28

Just brazen it out there. Shure no one would believe that a fine upstanding man like yourself would do something underhand like using more than one identity. You would never be caught having debates with yourself, would you? Anyone who thinks otherwise must be completely deluded.
It must have been the branchman hiding in your office.

by James R Thu Sep 14, 2006 06:51

I actually thought that those aliases were humourously transparent when I posted them. Im pretty sure most people spotted them for the jokes they were.

Miriam, surely as somebody who seems to be quite an avid user of the net you realise that it affords great anonymity. A consequence of this is that people can exploit anonymity to manufacture sock puppets to back up an argument they are making. In the parlance of a left with the memory of Stalinism and the more retrograde features of Trotskyism, there is a term called 'packing a meeting.' What you, Chris and others have been engaged in on this thread has amounted to virtually packing a meeting. You have used anonymity to manufacture non existent supporters of your point of view.

To me that is low. To me that really boils down to a complete disregard for the Irish Indymedia project. The reason as an editor that I put time in to this site is because I'd like to think it has a readership outside the left wing ghetto, a readership that is not privileged to the cat fights that typify this thread and a readership that does not find your and others adoption of pseudonyms 'humourously transparent.' That you think everybody who reads Indymedia and this thread is in on the same routine jokes is rather a pathetic ambition for the site. It either refects a rather pathetic level of ambition for the site and what it has achieved or the last minute excuses of somebody royally caught out for using unscrupulous methods in advancing a line of argument.

What makes me content with contributing to Indymedia is the level of response I get from people I know outside of the orbit of politics I operate in that value the site and rate it often more than me. The site has a reach beyond those typified as classic Indymedia users. How this has happened probably needs some study, but that it has happened is undoubted. With that in mind, I'd suggest that anyone sharing a conviction to broaden and deepen the project take a good glance at Terence's post and see if they can offer to fill in any of the gaps in it. There is so much worth doing and so few doing it. Terence provides a good wishlist of what is needed. If you think you can contribute then please come to the meeting on Saturday or join the lists.

by Miriam Thu Sep 14, 2006 08:50

You have got this totally out of proportion. More than many if not most people on this site I use my own name - on my stories and on a lot if not most of the comments I post. I do that as a point of principal although it has cost me dearly in several ways. I believe that people should stand up and be counted and not hide behind silly names - silly names which make this site look utterly stupid to most sensible people, but thats another point. If you cant be counted then nothing you say will mean anything, no matter how worthwile it might be.

Now, that said - and read carefully - there is a huge sense of humour bypass occurring here. The aliases that I used within the context of this thread were all directed at the arguments I have been making in this discussion - to underscore the sense of what I was trying to get over. The nature and style of my posts were identical - easily identifiable as me - and intended to be so.

Now do you feel silly?

You are upsetting yourself for no reason and again, motives are being attributed to me which I simply do not have. The absurdity of what you are saying (that I was trying to 'pack the meeting' - for God' sake!!!!) is manifestly nonsense given that I volunteered the shared identity of those aliases myself - just in case anyone hadnt realised it - precisely because I didnt want anyone to think that I was three people. Jeezzus! And not, as in the nightmarish fantasies of Chekov who seems to think that I had some way of knowing from West Cork that he has been using some gadget in Dublin to tell him who is who, it seems. Of course if you think I'm a wicked and evil witch then you might believe I could do that, I suppose. In other words you have twisted and contorted the facts of what I was doing to suit a stupid and grossly insulting caricature - and despite the obvious evidence of what I have actually done.

There is some sort of strange paranoia at play here. Let me reassure you. There is no conspiracy against Indymedia.ie by any of the people who are accused of it here. Nobody has invited me to do anything like that. So relax. Maybe you all know something I dont but from where I am sitting the stuff you have posted is dulally. The situation is exactly what it seems at face value, there are about six or seven people who have a fundamental disagreement with some of the editors on certain points and they have said so. That's a lot of people for one collective to alienate. Any chance at all that the problem is at your end, I wonder?

by Padraic - 1 of IMC editors Thu Sep 14, 2006 09:34

The situation is exactly what it seems at face value, there are about six or seven people who have a fundamental disagreement with some of the editors on certain points and they have said so. That's a lot of people for one collective to alienate. Any chance at all that the problem is at your end, I wonder?

Is it really as high as six or seven? Reading through this thread it seems more like maybe four people - yourself, iosaf, chris and pat c. Granted it would be better if we didn't annoy anyone but you can't have everything.

Anyway the purpose of this thread was to explain what the upcoming meetings were about and to get some feedback.

My own hope for these meetings would be that:

i)people who use and are interested in the site would get a better idea of how it works

ii)we could come up with ways to streamline the process of appointing and deposing editors

iii)we could come up with ways to empower and involve people who don't want to be editors

iv} we could recruit 4 or 5 sane editors

v) we could develop more of a real world presence

Ths thread might be offputting but i hope that everyone interested in the site and the ideas of indymedia can make it along to the meetings.

by redjade Thu Sep 14, 2006 09:39

Miriam,

A question: are you going to the meeting?

by Miriam Cotton - Impersonal Capacity Thu Sep 14, 2006 10:00

Nice to hear from you too.

A lot of efffort obviously went into to making your post as wounding as possible. I'm sorry to disappoint you but I stand unimpressed and uncrushed by your salty remarks.

First off, where did you get hold of the idea that your personal interpretation of feminism is the gold standard? And what the hell do you know about my feminism anyway? Have we met somewhere before? I would have welcomed you, as a life-long feminist, to this discussion (my first 'reclaim the night' march was down the Charing Cross Road in London, way back in 1979). If only anything you had said above was remotely connected to a feminist perspective then we might have been able to get some useful discussion going here. As it stands, though, it is just more of the same ole same ole sadly sexist abuse. Some of the boys will be delighted with you! When all else failed, that's all they had left to rely on too. So, that's the bitch cut down to size, etc etc. Vampire indeed! And I thought the witch thing was funny. There are four people standing round my computer falling about laughing at the moment. Some feminist!

Once again we have the interesting and well-documented phenomenon (IMC Worldwide, that is) of a woman critic, never heard from before in these discussions, entering into the fray in the middle of a discussion to diss on one of her sisters who is trying to challenge endemic sexism within an all male collective. No, I dont expect all women to agree with everything I say because I am a woman. But I certainly dont expect them to join in the witch - sorry - vampire burning - and certainly not in the calculatedly venomous way that you have. Tell me, does that sort of thing make you feel good? Interesting too how people like you can call yourselves activists and such like when the first thing you reach for is the banning solution to silence voices that dont reflect your point of view.

As to valuing Indymedia, you clearly have no idea what my involvement with this project has been. I'm delighted to allow that you may well be a much better feminist/activist/person/whatever - as you clearly believe yourself to be - but it does help to actually know what you are talking about before you start chucking insults around.

by definitely anonymous Thu Sep 14, 2006 10:43

Miriam, what has been said about you and the other relentless critics by "Sally Creagh" is absolutely true. You need to stand back and think about this. You are draining energy from people and damaging the site. Despite your complaints about being stretched for time (aren't we all?), you seem to have no difficulty finding time to endlessly harass the editors on this site with relentless complaining. You are a destructive force, as are Chris Murray and Sean Ryan.

Indymedia is being endanaged by this nonsense. Yes, there are serious issues to address with regard the complete lack of female editors. That is a problem that needs to be resolved - in a constructive way that respects the integrity and hard work of the present editors. Negative bickering is just dragging everybody down.

Please, stand back and think about the way you're approaching this. Indymedia is a voluntary effort, sustained by a few individuals. The issue with female editors does need to be sorted out, but it won't be helped by your negative sniping.

by omg Thu Sep 14, 2006 11:09

keep your dirty underwear thread somewhere else ffs, i enjoy reading this site but this thread is quite simply anally retentive

if a vote gets taken and someone gets a resounding no where is the point in crying over it like a kid?

Why not just give your layout of your meeting, let all the crap get aired at that, face to face rather than online hereos

by pat c - Gang of Four Thu Sep 14, 2006 11:16

Editors of course would never use multiple identities. The editors checking through the logs would confirm this. I wonder which editor "Truth Dawns" or "Troll" is? Does Chekov post as Badman anymore or has he got a new moniker now? I remember Chekov really stirring the shit as Badman alleging that Ruth Coppinger didn't live in the constituency she was a candidate in. But once again theres one law for the editors and another for the rest of us.

How about getting in someone independent to have a look at the logs. S/he could give an opinion as to whether the logs had been edited, altered or added to. Who in their opinion was posting using multiple identities. Whether or not you could identify multiple identities posted through a proxy server. Now thats worth a try.

" am stunned by the crackpots who seem to be trying to take over this site and disrupt it, not only them but Sean Ryan "

Why the ongoing attacks on Sean Ryan by editors or supporters of the editors? What has he done to annoy you?

" Maybe they could invite Con Carroll and his friend Paddy (The gay anti-abortionist who never puts any spaces between words) to help out."

Why the attacks on Con and Paddy? What have they done to you? They have never attacked the editors.

"In the parlance of a left with the memory of Stalinism and the more retrograde features of Trotskyism, there is a term called 'packing a meeting.' What you, Chris and others have been engaged in on this thread has amounted to virtually packing a meeting. You have used anonymity to manufacture non existent supporters of your point of view."

James, the editors have done just that. They control the logs though so who will ever know which editor was posting as Troll etc. A real sign of Stalinism is to see any dissent as a threat. To see a need to stamp it out.

"This stuff is what I call sorry. It's a shame to air it all in public, but hopefully having done so will give the editors the impetus to deal with it properly and stop allowing such anti-social egoists to dominate our working time. "

Look at that piece from Chekov. The editors want to be given the power to deal with the anti-social egoists who are disrupting Indymedia. Thats straight out of the Stalinist Show Trials of the 1930s. I can just hear the cries of "Shoot the mad dogs!".

Its amazing how the list of Enemies of the People has grown on this thread. Chris, Miriam, Iosaf, Pat C, and then strangely Seán Ryan is added to the list to be followed by Con Carroll and Paddy. Theres a mighty purge coming.

Folks, you dont even have to criticise, disagree with or even question the powers that be in Indymedia. If you dont cheer loudly enough then you will be suspect. So go along to the meeting, cheer the leadership and hiss at the dissidents. Dont forget the chant: "Shoot the mad dogs!".

by Andrew - WSM- personal capacity Thu Sep 14, 2006 11:40

This thread is a car crash - that aside

Pat in the past you have rightly complained why people have posted your full name so I'm not clear why you choose to post your theories about who Chekov may post as in other threads. It's actually not relevant to the discussion here and you are aware of this.

The problem on this thread is not that some people decided to post as Joe Blogs rather than Pat C or Chekov or Andrew or whatever. It is that some people posted as Joe Blogs and as Joe Smith and as Joe Other in order to conduct a 'conversation' between their three identities.

For those puzzed by the jargon this is what 'sock puppetry means'. The Wikipedia entry on it can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_sock_puppet . Some extracts from this follow

"Sockpuppet .. is an additional account created by an existing member of an Internet community pretending to be a separate person. This may be done so as to manufacture the illusion of support in a vote or argument or to act without social effect on one's "main" account. This behaviour is often seen as dishonest by online communities and as a result these individuals are often labeled as trolls.
..
Typically, the user:
has more knowledge than would be expected of a newcomer regarding the site's methods, rules, and community members;
takes part in similar discussions and has mostly same opinions as the user's main account;
..
Combatting Sockpuppets

Fighting sock puppetry has become more difficult in recent years due to the advent of several new technologies, two key ones being internet proxies and NAT (Network Address Translation).

Proxies
Proxies as they relate to sock puppetry are online services through which users can surf the Internet, making it appear to web servers that they have a different IP address, are located in a different city (even country), or are otherwise not the same person they were before they began using the proxy."

by pat c Thu Sep 14, 2006 11:48

"Pat in the past you have rightly complained why people have posted your full name so I'm not clear why you choose to post your theories about who Chekov may post as in other threads. It's actually not relevant to the discussion here and you are aware of this."

What has full names got to do with pseudynoms? If Chekov can out people so can I. Or is there one law for Chekov and another for me? Its more than a theory by the way about Badman.

"The problem on this thread is not that some people decided to post as Joe Blogs rather than Pat C or Chekov or Andrew or whatever. It is that some people posted as Joe Blogs and as Joe Smith and as Joe Other in order to conduct a 'conversation' between their three identities."

I say the editors also did this. The only way this can be resolved is by allowing an independent inspection of the logs. The editors are not being particularly clever or security conscious by leaving the monitoring on for so long. They are gathering and storing information which would be of use to the State. They haven't turned it on to protect Indy, just for their own purposes.

"Proxies"

The proxie I am speaking about is one wherby an organisations access to the web is through one proxy server.

by Truth Thu Sep 14, 2006 11:52

First of all I am not an editor and any check on the IP's can verify that very easily. Secondly this has to be the worst thread on indymedia, ever. It is a case of several people not getting their way attempting to bully people. I exclude Pat C from this who I believe is allowing his argument with Robbie to spill over onto this thread. This thread is absolutely ridiculous and shows how farcical some of the bullies are.

by Miriam Thu Sep 14, 2006 13:32

These are my motives:

Chauvinism is defining our society not just in terms of men-to-women, but in every aspect of the way the country is run. There is ruthless, machismo bullying underlying much of what most people on this thread dislike about the way the country is administered.

Now, I am not arrogant enough to imagine that my being an editor on Indymedia.ie is going to change any of that. It is nothing at all to do with 'personal ambition', though most of my critics are convinced that it is. What I perceived in the way me and others were treated was a shocking degree of innate and overt sexism among a group of men who I really thought would be different - and who for the main part I really like. That is not to say that I have not been angry with many of you, on this issue, during these speicific discussions. You are running a national newsservice - a significant and much welcome alternative to anything else that we have. And it is precisely because of its alternative nature, precisely becaue I value it so much, that this issue is so important to me. I want Indymedia to get it right because it matters to too many of us that it should get it right. I dont pretend to represent all women or think that it is down to me alone to sort Indymedia out where sexism is concerned. But I believe I have a duty to challenge Indymedia's sexism as it has affected me and others near me in this virtual world we inhabit, in these circumstances.

This is neither fun nor rewarding, as things stand. It is a lot of hard work, comparable so far as I am concerned to any other activist or protest work that I do and which many of us here are involved in too. I dont have the time for it, and other things are suffering because of it. I have taken time out on about four of five occasions now and it is appalling to see how I am sneered at and doubted for doing that too. Remember, I am a volunteer too. And for all the hours I have put into to doing what housekeeping I have done on this site, I have also written many pieces for it. Some people put a very nasty interpretation on my reasons for doing that and