[imc-melbourne-work] Revise the old or bring on the new?

[Nigel W]

Certainly, it is pointless simply re-activating the old site - we'll rapidly find ourselves back in the same boat.
The main problem with open publishing isn't open publishing *per se*, but the open publishing model MIM and most IMCs have been using - allowing any twit to share their psychological disorders with the rest of us, even when the rest of us aren't interested in playing the role of councillor! I think introducing a password system (which allows people to retain their anonymity while still providing them with a web identity) combined with moderator promotion/deletion of truly anonymous posts, should virtually eliminate the trolls/flamers. 

"This article covers fairly well some off the issues with comments, ie 
they tent to add nothing and usually detract from the whole piece."

That is often the case, but not necessarily so. The ones which detract are usually those written by trolls/flamers etc. and shouldn't be a problem once we implement a password system. Comments can often add relevant information to a thread, as well as provide for exposure of mis/disinfo and flawed arguments. I'm thinking that a useful feature we can introduce is to allow for the person writing the article to decide whether or not they want to allow comments and allow them the option of moderating the comments in their thread. Should it be necessary, the moderators should have the option of intervening.

"If we want to get quality info out there it needs to be in a controlled 
environment: to generate the content, keep the writers, keep the site 
worthwhile, and keep the readers and build and keep the moderators. It 
seems to me that indymedia melbourne has failed on all of these points."

Yes. Once the site is almost self-moderated, the energies of the collective can then be utilised to work on improving the site - partly in the technical sense, but mainly by actively seeking out/recruiting/working with writers and other artists with a wide diversity of interests. 
I think the main thing the MIM collective need to work on is improving our internal organisation and management. I think a (probably Wiki-based) page is required which will list all the tasks which the MIMC need/want to perform, along with who's primarily responsible for it and who's there as backup. This, along with a few other organisational ideas which I've been thinking about, would be relatively simple to implement and would allow us to see where our energy is going. Once *we* know what we're doing, it will be much easier to tell potential new members what sort of tasks we need to get done. I think our own disorganisation has squandered far more of our energy than any other single factor. 

"......i think the problems are much more 
serious that that and really do require a huge rethink - in fact so huge 
i believe that a new site and method/format entirely are required if we 
wish to bring a sustainable activist news site out."

Agreed. I think more of a magazine format is the way to go, while still keeping core functions such as the newswire and calendar on the front page. For each section of the magazine, there would be a responsible owner(s) (ie: a contributer)  and a MIMC member responsible for its contents. There would also be a content management page so that if whoever is responsible for a particular section of the magazine can no longer put in the time, we will know straight away and can then decide whether to shut that section down or try and get someone else to take it over.
    There are many other things we can do to make MIM a worthwhile project (Hey - maybe other IMCs will be inspired by, and copy us!), however before anything has a hope in hell of getting off the ground we really need to have a meeting!

"just my thoughts, hope they help."

They did. Thankyou.

Nigel




rory <zeroworkethic at riseup.net> wrote: After thinking about the demise/hibernation of melbourne indymedia and 
those other indymedia sites that are also offline i have come to have 
some serious concerns about open publishing - in terms of generating 
content, comments and general viability.

This article covers fairly well some off the issues with comments, ie 
they tent to add nothing and usually detract from the whole piece.

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/07/20.html

And whilst i honestly think there is some need for an activist based 
news site for melb/aus/oceania, i have now concluded that the indymedia 
format - that of open publishing and consensus decision-making is in 
this situation now a flawed one.

If we want to get quality info out there it needs to be in a controlled 
environment: to generate the content, keep the writers, keep the site 
worthwhile, and keep the readers and build and keep the moderators. It 
seems to me that indymedia melbourne has failed on all of these points.

To those who think the site just needs a quick fix or that a few sites 
just need to be joined together i think the problems are much more 
serious that that and really do require a huge rethink - in fact so huge 
i believe that a new site and method/format entirely are required if we 
wish to bring a sustainable activist news site out.

just my thoughts, hope they help.

rory


_______________________________________________
imc-melbourne-work mailing list
imc-melbourne-work at indymedia.org.au
http://lists.indymedia.org.au/mailman/listinfo/imc-melbourne-work


       
---------------------------------
Yahoo!7 Mail has just got even bigger and better with unlimited storage on all webmail accounts. Find out more.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.indymedia.org.au/pipermail/imc-melbourne-work/attachments/20070723/745b4625/attachment.htm