[imc-melbourne-work] Future of Melbourne Indymedia

[Anna Helme]

hey everyone,

i talked to mazz about indymedia and she said she's up for writing one 
feature/week.

so if the radio show is doing one feature, mazz is doing another, that's 
two regular
features/week. looks like jem is up for doing features too, it's a real 
shame that one
didn't go up..

that's a fair bit of commitment for not much asking around. if we 
followed liz's plan
of having a teach-in event to get people involved i reckon we'd 
definitely get a crew
of five people/groups together as a features collective.

that could leave takver/harry to stop features for a while and just 
moderate. but i'm
sure we could find more moderators too.

that doesn't fix the software problem tho.. should we write to the 
oceania list and
say "melbourne will close unless we have a developer to finish our 
drupal site,
please get involved!" ?

i don't know.. maybe we *should* close the site and re-build indymedia 
as we
want it to be, leaving some of its problems behind..

anna


takver wrote:
> Since May 2003 I have been the principal feature writer. At various 
> times others have contributed greatly. Here is what I think needs to 
> happen.
>
> Its great to hear the activity on the indymedia radio collective. But 
> we need to go back to basics and look at what we do and how we do it.
>
> Firstly, I think there is still a need for an independent grassroots 
> activist NEWS site for Melbourne or Victoria. This is still a 
> worthwhile activity. Most of what happens on MIM is more opinion than 
> news at the moment, more suitable for a blog rather than a news site. 
> But News should still be our priority.
>
> ==Problems==
>
> Currently the site is plagued by trolls, is overly opinionated, with 
> not enough grassroots reports of actions, meetings and activities. 
> What reports are being made usually come from a select few regulars, 
> including myself.
>
> There needs to be more people reporting for the site. This means 
> proselitizing out in the field and through meetings and workshops. It 
> also means educating people how to write a good article or report. But 
> first we need to fix the software platform.
>
> I think the editorial collective, that do the features, needs at least 
> 5 people each willing to commit to writing at least one feature a week 
> on average. I think the site can manage one feature a day, but just 
> two people doing the features for any length of time will ultimately 
> burn out. I am surprised I have lasted so long. We need to increase 
> the size of the editorial group to at least 4 or 5 or more to be 
> sustainable.
>
> More people should be able to moderate the newswire. If I spend an 
> hour moderating the newswire, I just don't feel motivated to spending 
> another hour trying to write a feature. A well moderated site will 
> ultimately increase patronage, and will also result in more "reports 
> from the field".
>
> ==Software==
>
> In terms of software, the Melbourne site really needs that upgrade. 
>
> * We need Userids for identification of quality users.
>
> * We need an Option for users when they post an article to decide 
> whether they want a) no comments B) approved comments c) all comments
>
> * At least one newswire that is only for articles posted by "trusted 
> users" and that members of the editorial collective can move articles 
> to. Without this, we can not met the requirements of Google News and 
> we become just another opinionated blog.
>
>
> My inspiration comes from indybay.org. Indybay IMC use three 
> newswires: local, global and breaking. All posts go to breaking and 
> the Ed collective moves the quality posts to the local and global 
> newswires. This is labour intensive but ensures two quality newswires. 
> With a new platform we should be able to duplicate this and reduce the 
> labour necessary. It is one of the few IMCs in the global network 
> indexed by Google News.
>
> ==Personal feelings==
>
> At the moment I'm feeling pretty burnt out, and demoralised that we 
> haven't been able to upgrade the software platform. 
>
> Notifying Google to remove us from their news indexing really reduced 
> my commitment to the site. We had to do it because of Mick and other 
> trolls posting inappropriately, but I really was hoping we would have 
> the new platform up and running before too long with at least one  
> newswire that the editorial collective had control over.
>
> One of the highpoints from last year came when one of the people on a 
> picket started posting stories about the picket line and the 
> industrial dispute to MIM. Those posting were picked up by Google News 
> and featured alongside corporate journalist reports. That was 
> something really positive that we were able to do. Similarly with 
> logging protests in Tasmania. Without Google News we are reduced to 
> the realm of blogging
>
> WE do suffer from way too much crossposting, and opinion pieces and 
> far too little direct reports.
>
> I remain committed to MIMC and to the editorial collective, but we 
> really need a good makeover on the organisational and software sides 
> if we are to continue to provide a useful activist NEWS resource.
>
>