Los Angeles Indymedia : Activist News
| About Us | Contact Us | Calendar | Publish | RSS |
|---|
|
Features • latest news • best of news • syndication • commentary Feature Categories IMC Network:
Original Citieswww.indymedia.org africa: ambazonia canarias estrecho / madiaq kenya nigeria south africa canada: hamilton london, ontario maritimes montreal ontario ottawa quebec thunder bay vancouver victoria windsor winnipeg east asia: burma jakarta japan korea manila qc europe: abruzzo alacant andorra antwerpen armenia athens austria barcelona belarus belgium belgrade bristol brussels bulgaria calabria croatia cyprus emilia-romagna estrecho / madiaq euskal herria galiza germany grenoble hungary ireland istanbul italy la plana liege liguria lille linksunten lombardia london madrid malta marseille nantes napoli netherlands nice northern england norway oost-vlaanderen paris/Île-de-france patras piemonte poland portugal roma romania russia saint-petersburg scotland sverige switzerland thessaloniki torun toscana toulouse ukraine united kingdom valencia latin america: argentina bolivia chiapas chile chile sur cmi brasil colombia ecuador mexico peru puerto rico qollasuyu rosario santiago tijuana uruguay valparaiso venezuela venezuela oceania: adelaide aotearoa brisbane burma darwin jakarta manila melbourne perth qc sydney south asia: india mumbai united states: arizona arkansas asheville atlanta austin baltimore big muddy binghamton boston buffalo charlottesville chicago cleveland colorado columbus dc hawaii houston hudson mohawk kansas city la madison maine miami michigan milwaukee minneapolis/st. paul new hampshire new jersey new mexico new orleans north carolina north texas nyc oklahoma philadelphia pittsburgh portland richmond rochester rogue valley saint louis san diego san francisco san francisco bay area santa barbara santa cruz, ca sarasota seattle tampa bay tennessee urbana-champaign vermont western mass worcester west asia: armenia beirut israel palestine process: fbi/legal updates mailing lists process & imc docs tech volunteer projects: print radio satellite tv video regions: oceania united states topics: biotechSurviving Citieswww.indymedia.org africa: canada: quebec east asia: japan europe: athens barcelona belgium bristol brussels cyprus germany grenoble ireland istanbul lille linksunten nantes netherlands norway portugal united kingdom latin america: argentina cmi brasil rosario oceania: aotearoa united states: austin big muddy binghamton boston chicago columbus la michigan nyc portland rochester saint louis san diego san francisco bay area santa cruz, ca tennessee urbana-champaign worcester west asia: palestine process: fbi/legal updates process & imc docs projects: radio satellite tv |
printable version
- js reader version
- view hidden posts
- tags and related articles
View article without comments WANTED: freedom and dignity at LA-IMCby anticrisis Tuesday, Dec. 10, 2002 at 9:58 PMwe need both: freedom AND dignity how can we best address our dismay over the state of the LA-IMC newswire?
'anonymous volunteer's proposal: "what we need is a forum system structured in a way that allows people to participate in constructive written conversations or debates. people who work hard at their posts deserve to have their work viewed in what they feel is a dignified and respectful context if they so wish. basically, people need to treat each other with respect. at any public gathering place (a park, a beach, a market, etc.), people expect respectful treatment from one another. people shouldn't have to surrender these feelings in order to participate in the IMC. of course some people don't mind and like to have shouting marathons, but not usually with total strangers, and in any case that should be a choice and not a necessity. then there are those who are simply malcriado (badly brought up).... they don't know how to disagree without insulting. they don't know how to maintain consideration for others who are not in the room with them. they betray their own mother for their boss. they lie with no shame. their loyalty is not to a principle, but to a hierarchy. the way comments to the newswire work presently is like one long thread of stacked comments. there are various creative ways of mixing it up a little and keeping things constructive but basically the quality and mood of the thread is easily thrown off or completely derailed by any individual or group of people that wants to impose themselves in a disrespectful way. there is nothing to prevent this getting out of hand to the point where a lot of exasperated people abandon interesting conversations. this is a shame because networks of interrelated constructive dialogues and debates about the issues that affect our communities and movements for constructive social change are potentially more valuable than we can even measure. don't forget that the IMC is a historic achievement already and it's only just started. so here is one possible solution idea: when you click on a newswire item headline/link, it opens and the entire article or photo or whatever is displayed. a chronological list of headlines/links to ALL comments about that item, if there are any, will appear underneath the item. when you click on a comment headline/link, it opens and the entire comment is displayed, often underneath the original item and a stack of earlier comments. when you add a comment you are asked to specify which previous comments, if any, you do NOT want to appear with your comment. when your comment is published, it's headline and your name (or nickname) will appear as a link at the bottom of whichever item or comment you commented on, underneath the links to any previous comments. when you click on the headline/link to your comment, it will open and you will see your comment. above your comment you will see only those previous comments which you wanted to be displayed with yours, if any. anyone is free to comment on your comment, and a list of names and headlines/links may accumulate under your comment. the key here is the ability to choose which comments will not be displayed in full together with one's own comment. alternatively, and perhaps more "positively", choosing which comments WILL be displayed with one's own, would also work. could even offer both negative and positive selection options. which would take more keystrokes? it depends and i would expect it to vary. so in the hopes of bringing LOTS more people into constructive dialogue, including many who may have temporarily lost their interest because of our problems, i think we should redouble our efforts to dream up creative structures and processes for the IMC website design, for media more generally, and for all our social structures and organizational needs. don't be fooled or forced into choosing between total war and total silence. or between censorship and surrender. resist alarmism if it requires you to insult the gentle or follow orders. we need to be creative, fluid, inventive, always finding a way, some way. don't wither and die outside a locked door. try the windows, the chimney, pretend to be the milkman, dig your way under..... the internet remains flexible. i think there are various ways we can arrange things so that people who want to test their debating chops can do that without disturbing people who want to get moral or emotional support.... without disturbing people who just want to drop tons of links and pile them up in stacks of posts with others.... without disturbing people who want to stay right on a specific point and create a whole database on it with others.... without disturbing people who want to just talk shit all night and day. some people who talk a lot of shit will shut up as soon as they can't impose it on someone. others will become constructive all of a sudden. others will suddenly want to debate shit talkers when they no longer feel REQUIRED to do so. long term solutions may require more server space or something which comes down to money and that may make it impossible in the short term." see also: Chuck0's perspective a.v.b. in context a.v. in context latest
Report this post as:
good ideaby johnk Wednesday, Dec. 11, 2002 at 2:16 PMit took me a while to figure this out, but eventually figured out that the request is for a hierarchically organized comments system.
i think this would work. the chronological system we use works too, but not for large numbers of people. (likewise, the hierarchical listing tends to fail in situations where there are fewer people and you want to create a more "community" feeling.)
Report this post as:
eureka!!by Marc Wednesday, Dec. 11, 2002 at 4:39 PMAhhh, finally!! EXACTLY the sort of dialogueI have been hoping for! I was starting to get goosebumps reading the original post (very nicely presented, by the way), because I felt it applied to me, only too well!
Being somewhat new to the site, I quickly became frustrated at the absurd banality with which people were treating each other. Normally, I would be able to pass this off as a particular viewpoint (or spectrum of viewpoints) feeling so alienated that the only response they could formulate was one they learned in grammar school: lash back! Unfortunately, the reality is that things are not so simple, and many of those whose viewpoints I would agree with utterly desensitized me with their rancor, and I stopped wanting to engage. Some formulaic groundwork is not something to be afraid of, but something that can add to the cohesiveness of the site. I applaud the gesture, and am encouraged by the direction I think it will take indymedia (at least our local). If people want to engage in some sort of free-for-all, maybe some other forum would be more appropriate. I enjoy spirited debate - but informed and informative dialogue are a far cry from the insipid diatribe that seems to emanate from certain participants. Rock on, Indymedia! Don't let the bullies (on ANY side!) dictate the tone that you wish to set. If we can figure a way to enjoy healthy arguments without resorting to infantile assaults, we have maintained the higher ground. Maybe some of our "elected" officials should take a cue...
Report this post as:
yeah.by urple Wednesday, Dec. 11, 2002 at 6:25 PMYeah, we should remember that IMC is a public space much like a park, that there are appropriate uses for the space and inappropriate ones. IMC is made for constructive dialogue not spamming.
I like how Marc writes "Maybe some of our "elected" officials should take a cue..." I've been thinking, as a result of our democratic crisis- as a result of the destructive tone many comments take, as a result of recent trips to Europe where the definition of what is allowable in mainstream political discourse is much wider, that we really have a limited understanding of what debate and conversation is all about. It would be inspiring if all posters to Indymedia got over this hump of crap we're in and talked to one and other out of respect and honest engagement- not political smearing that neglects issues. Halleluja.
Report this post as:
San Diego IMC...by Sheepdog Wednesday, Dec. 11, 2002 at 8:48 PM...Has a ratings box at the end of each post.
Has any one thought of democratically dealing with these problems? Maybe a compost bin driven by unpopular response?
Report this post as:
..don't be so hasty...by Marc Thursday, Dec. 12, 2002 at 1:54 PM...to take the high ground. Start by NOT directly labeling "others" but by taking responsibility for your own posts. Of all the names listed in your post (including, unfortunately, your own) not one is without some measure of culpability. Let's move beyond (if "we" all can) and start being constructive. I don't want anyone to be edited or black-listed, but the tone of many threads has degraded into mud-slinging. That's COUNTER-productive and has the detrimental quality of turning MANY away. Let's engage each other, present opinions, counter arguments, cite references, but above all do so with some semblance of respect for the process, and especially for the indivduals. This is OUR site, and it can be as good or bad as WE allow it to be.
Report this post as:
Observe the followingby Anyone Friday, Dec. 13, 2002 at 7:54 AMPrime examples of debate from the Mr. Admirer(?):
Proposition. -The real problem is that Sheepdog, KMC, and Lynx are spammers. They're either unwilling or unable to debate the issues. The editors should hide their posts. Simple Simon, T-Mex, and myself try to debate the issues despite the spammers- Examples of the Mr. Admirer’s debate points: 1.-Sheep sniffer... He's a leftist Sheepdog. A leftist.- 2.-The people of Venezuela made a big mistake when they elected Chavez. He's a leftist and therefore doomed to failure- 3.-Disrespectful to our great country and our great President. Lynx is a jerk or he wouldn't be posting such rubbish.- 4.- Your posts are strange to say the least. Are you high?- 5.-It's amazing how many losers show up at this sort of gathering. The conference is a magnet for losers- (more comming)
Report this post as:
new directionby urple Friday, Dec. 13, 2002 at 10:50 AMI do think this conversation represents a new direction for LA-IMC, its a more exact definition of who we are. While I agree that we have all definded it in the past in our heads, and through editorial policies that call hiding racist/sexist/murderous posts, we are talking about a much more directed approach- banning not only individual posts but limmiting individuals access.
Report this post as:
..by anticrisis Friday, Dec. 13, 2002 at 11:57 PMwhat is meant by "hierarchically organized"?
i think "anonymous volunteer"s proposal implies rather that selectivity will enable participants to create at least the same diversity of moods, styles, functions of dialogue as we can find at a party, for example. not hierarchy, really.... ?
Report this post as:
also,by Marc Saturday, Dec. 14, 2002 at 10:25 AMWould a.v.'s proposal not also make the threads longer? How would the screen display the threads? Would, say PERSON X draft a piece as the orginal post, and each subsequent comment would include IN THEIR COMMENT the selections they have indicated? Unless I am misunderstanding (quite possible - but this'll help detail where this is going) that sounds like the threads would expand exponentially, and the pages might take forever to scroll through. Either that or you will have to click open an endless amount of links to see what comments were made on previous comments so that you know which comments you want to include/exclude with your comments (whew!)
I can see the drawbacks of allowing a free-for-all where every comment comes chronologically after the previous one Comments start to run on, and on, and on, and on, etc. Often it is hard to tell what is going on, let alone what relevance it may have to the original post. I'm only too sure of how atypical I am, but I don't even engage in a thread without having first read (and often re-read) the original post, and then the next, and the next, and so on. Circumventing that is like starting a book on chapter 17. I like to see where the dialogue started, how it has evolved and mutated. But it gets frustrating when the comments are not germane to the topic, the tone drifts towards epithets... Well, we've all seen how that goes. Maybe some guidelines more specific than those listed: "Guidelines for Commenting on News Articles Thanks for contributing to LA Indymedia's open publishing Newswire. Your response article can be in any format, from academic discourse to subjective personal account. Please keep it on topic and concise. And please read our privacy and legal statements before continuing." A couple of thoughts: 1. This is an OPEN and INDEPENDENT forum and comments by ALL are encouraged. 2. RESPECT YOUR FELLOW INDYMEDIA PARTICIPANTS. We at LA Indymedia REQUIRE that all participants accord each other some consideration and appreciation for engaging in substantive dialogue about issues. Be polite and show deferential regard to people of all walks of life, regardless of your differences. We ALL benefit from debate and the sharing of ideas. Criticize the ideas, but not the idealists. Make your criticism constructive. Tell people why you disagree and what you think. DO NOT ENGAGE IN PERSONAL ATTACK. 3. BE GERMANE AND STAY ON TOPIC. If you wish to address a different subject, begin a new article with a new subject. 4. CITE REFERENCES. Outside of potential legal issues, quotes, articles, and material NOT DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE AUTHOR OF AN ARTICLE/COMMENT/POST deserve to be referenced to their original author. Plagiarism is discouraged in the utmost. It is not allowed in schools (allegedly) and it has no place here. We encourage you to reference material and include it in your argument, but give credit where credit is due. 5. LA INDYMEDIA/MODERATOR reserves the SOLE RIGHT to remove OFFENSIVE and/or OBJECTIONABLE material at its discretion. While this site is for ALL, it is run and maintained by dedicated individuals, and their ability to maintain the forum must take primacy. 6. BE INVOLVED AND PARTICIPATE! Comments and suggestions are always welcome. We want to know what you THINK! This site works because we ALL make it work. ...just a few thoughts! Happy Friday 13th! Marc
Report this post as:
AV's proposal(?)by annonymous volunteer (gathered by urple) Saturday, Dec. 14, 2002 at 11:19 AM"what we need is a forum system structured in a way that allows people to participate in constructive written conversations or debates. people who work hard at their posts deserve to have their work viewed in what they feel is a dignified and respectful context if they so wish. basically, people need to treat each other with respect. at any public gathering place (a park, a beach, a market, etc.), people expect respectful treatment from one another. people shouldn't have to surrender these feelings in order to participate in the IMC. of course some people don't mind and like to have shouting marathons, but not usually with total strangers, and in any case that should be a choice and not a necessity. then there are those who are simply malcriado (badly brought up).... they don't know how to disagree without insulting. they don't know how to maintain consideration for others who are not in the room with them. they betray their own mother for their boss. they lie with no shame. their loyalty is not to a principle, but to a hierarchy. the way comments to the newswire work presently is like one long thread of stacked comments. there are various creative ways of mixing it up a little and keeping things constructive but basically the quality and mood of the thread is easily thrown off or completely derailed by any individual or group of people that wants to impose themselves in a disrespectful way. there is nothing to prevent this getting out of hand to the point where a lot of exasperated people abandon interesting conversations. this is a shame because networks of interrelated constructive dialogues and debates about the issues that affect our communities and movements for constructive social change are potentially more valuable than we can even measure. don't forget that the IMC is a historic achievement already and it's only just started. so here is one possible solution idea: when you click on a newswire item headline/link, it opens and the entire article or photo or whatever is displayed. a chronological list of headlines/links to ALL comments about that item, if there are any, will appear underneath the item. when you click on a comment headline/link, it opens and the entire comment is displayed, often underneath the original item and a stack of earlier comments. when you add a comment you are asked to specify which previous comments, if any, you do NOT want to appear with your comment. when your comment is published, it's headline and your name (or nickname) will appear as a link at the bottom of whichever item or comment you commented on, underneath the links to any previous comments. when you click on the headline/link to your comment, it will open and you will see your comment. above your comment you will see only those previous comments which you wanted to be displayed with yours, if any. anyone is free to comment on your comment, and a list of names and headlines/links may accumulate under your comment. the key here is the ability to choose which comments will not be displayed in full together with one's own comment. alternatively, and perhaps more "positively", choosing which comments WILL be displayed with one's own, would also work. could even offer both negative and positive selection options. which would take more keystrokes? it depends and i would expect it to vary. so in the hopes of bringing LOTS more people into constructive dialogue, including many who may have temporarily lost their interest because of our problems, i think we should redouble our efforts to dream up creative structures and processes for the IMC website design, for media more generally, and for all our social structures and organizational needs. don't be fooled or forced into choosing between total war and total silence. or between censorship and surrender. resist alarmism if it requires you to insult the gentle or follow orders. we need to be creative, fluid, inventive, always finding a way, some way. don't whither and die outside a locked door. try the windows, the chimney, pretend to be the milkman, dig your way under..... the internet remains fairly flexible. i think there are various ways we can arrange things so that people who want to test their debating chops can do that without disturbing people who want to get moral or emotional support.... without disturbing people who just want to drop tons of links and pile them up in stacks of posts with others.... without disturbing people who want to stay right on a specific point and create a whole database on it with others.... without disturbing people who want to just talk shit all night and day. some people who talk a lot of shit will shut up as soon as they can't impose it on someone. others will become constructive all of a sudden. others will suddenly want to debate shit talkers when they no longer feel REQUIRED to do so. long term solutions may require more server space or something which comes down to money and that may make it impossible in the short term. but people we have got to start talking and coming up with some more ideas about how to do this. we all have a lot to gain. the only reason i can think of why some will oppose it is because they would rather speak with people who don't want to speak with them"
Report this post as:
.by anticrisis Thursday, Dec. 19, 2002 at 7:35 AMother ideas -- more option buttons for displaying Most Commented Articles: "most commented articles - first half of month" etc. "most commented articles - by author" "most commented articles - display only one per original post" more option buttons for displaying Latest Comments page: "Latest Comments - every comment chronologically" "Latest Comments - display only one per headline" -------------- how does the a.v. proposal solve the 'troll' problem? the a.v. proposal does nothing to prevent attacks that aim to exhaust the resources of the IMC servers. but with further development, the a.v. proposal could perhaps provide an incentive for commenters to appeal to one another's needs, sensiblities and tastes without forcing anyone to do so and without censoring any style, mood, sensibility, or function. the a.v. proposal also presents a powerful disincentive for any antagonizers or harassers who crave or require a reaction. the a.v. proposal allows them to be ignored without abandoning any conversation. the vast majority of complaints we read on the IMC today can perhaps be addressed without resorting to hierarchical management. the a.v. proposal also allows that different types of discourse may be incompatible with one another although equally worthwhile. ------------------------ so for example..... suppose a post entitled **** accumulates four comments from A, B, C, and D. and then E adds a comment that A, B, and D would rather not have displayed with their comments, although C wants to debate with E. suppose A, B, and D still want to continue their conversation but not if E's bothersome comment is involved. keep in mind that neither A, B, C, D, nor E are sure exactly how any of the others feel about each other's comments though they have their hunches. so.... A responds to the original stack, excluding E's bothersome comment from display. A's new comment excluding E's bothersome comment appears on the Latest Comments page with the title ****2 . that new link (****2) displays the four old comments and one new comment all below the original post in chronological order. as it happens B and D are happy to continue the conversation without E's bothersome comment. so both of them quickly add their comments to ****2, first B, then D (for a total of seven comments in the stack, plus the original post). C looks at the Latest Comments page and sees both **** and ****2. intrigued, C checks both links and sees that A, B, and D are continuing in their direction that would have been difficult with comments like E's bothersome comment. C likes A, B, and D's direction and adds a comment to ****2 allowing the default option to select all of the posts from the stack (which does not include E's bothersome post of course) for display with C's new comment (for a total of eight comments plus original in ****2 stack). the Latest Comments page now shows **** with E's name next to it and ****2 with C's name next to it. then C decides to further the debate with E and addds a comment to ****, again allowing the default to select all previous posts from that stack (six plus original in ****). A, B, and D's latest comments (after E's bothersome comment) weren't among the possibilities for chronological display above C's latest comment debating E, but C doesn't mind because C is part of both conversations now and both conversations have different purposes. E looks at the Latest Comments page and sees that **** (with six comments) is a retort from C and ****2 (with eight comments total plus original) has four new comments from A, B, D, and C, excluding and ignoring E. after replying to C at **** with an off-color joke, E gets frustrated at being ignored and decides to reply to ****2 whether they want him to or not. so E does it.... so then the Latest Comments page would show **** (seven comments) and ****2 (nine comments) both by E. so then B looks at the Latest Comments page, reads the two latest ****2 comments (D then E) is again bothered by E's comment and replies to D, C, and A at ****2, excluding E again.... then C continues the debate with E at ****. so now the Latest Comments page shows **** (eight comments) by C, ****3 (ten comments) by B, and ****2 (nine comments) by E. A and D both see the Latest Comments page and reply to ****3. at this point ****3 has only excluded two comments, both by E. ****3 now has 12 comments plus the original post.......... --------------------------------- "Would a.v.'s proposal not also make the threads longer?" no, i think. unless the overall number of posts were to increase dramatically, i think the a.v. proposal would tend to shorten the stacks of comments. this is because each new commenter (x) would have the option to exclude any old comments from being displayed with commenter (x)'s new comment. "How would the screen display the threads? Would, say PERSON X draft a piece as the orginal post, and each subsequent comment would include IN THEIR COMMENT the selections they have indicated?" not IN their comment, but ABOVE their comment, chronologically i think, much the same as stacks of comments appear on LA-IMC now. "Unless I am misunderstanding (quite possible - but this'll help detail where this is going) that sounds like the threads would expand exponentially, and the pages might take forever to scroll through." the number of separate stacks would grow (each stack of comments would tend to be shorter). "Either that or you will have to click open an endless amount of links to see what comments were made on previous comments so that you know which comments you want to include/exclude with your comments (whew!)" no, i think. we would only be able to select/exclude old comments from the same stack for chronological display above our new comment. it may make sense to have the default option be to include all comments from the same stack. ------------------------------ more generally.... 1. maybe the more that members of IMC collectives use the public IMC newswires both generally and specifically to propose , discuss, and debate developments in IMC structure, the better the IMC will be. 2. maybe improvements in the quality of interaction on the IMC website will be ongoing, hopefully for many years, through a continual process of adjustments rather than a sudden transition to a perfect solution. 3. maybe problems arising from public participation in the site will in the long run be solved by giving people more options, not fewer. sorry for the too long post....
Report this post as:
no apologies neededby Marc Thursday, Dec. 19, 2002 at 11:35 AMIf we had more discussion by the participants to garner some attention to this issue, maybe long posts would not "feel" so cumbersome. As it is, I savor reading through long posts that are incisive and on such substantive issues as the format of this site. This is for the benefit of all indymedia visitors and participants, and should be taken as a blessing that the moderators/owners are willing to engage in dialogue to effect changes and improvements.
Report this post as:
another idea....by baby Monday, Jan. 13, 2003 at 9:47 PMmaybe LA-IMC tech people could add a 'see latest comments' link to the bottom of every newswire post (kind of like the 'add your comment' link).... or under every comment.
sometimes, like after yesterdays protest, there is a lot more 'commentary' than usual on LA-IMC.... a lot of new visitors may be looking at the newswire on the front page, excited to see each newswire post as it appears, but unaware that there is (sometimes) other 'commentary' (like this message, for example) going on which they can't link to directly from the front page.
Report this post as:
A great point!by Marc Tuesday, Jan. 14, 2003 at 11:00 AMI think that is a great point, Baby! It helps to "capitalize" (sorry, but it does have some non-economic usages) on something very apparent, the increase in visitors AFTER events such as this weekends rally. Great suggestion!
Report this post as:
.by lynx-11 Friday, Jan. 24, 2003 at 12:32 PM....a more general but related idea:
Resisting "Complexity Management" opportunity for Palestine? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- anticrisis
Report this post as:
|
