[imc-melbourne-work] Future of Melbourne Indymedia

[harry tuttle]

Not getting any response on this.....

I really think we need to make the decision to disable
publishing temporarily with an explanation on the
site. Otherwise, I am happy to have a meeting to work
out what to do, but I wasnt getting a lot of response
around that either...

Harry



--- harry tuttle <harrytuttle123 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
> I agree with And. It would have been ideal to get a
> meeting together to decide on something like this.
> However, I dont think it is going to happy any time
> soon. As such I think we need to make a decision on
> line to disable publishing at present given that
> there
> has not been a feature in a month and that the site
> is
> not be properly watched or admined. 
> 
> It seems there is certainly ideas and enthusiasm for
> MIM to continue, but I think a first step is that we
> need to disable publishing, and stop and take stock
> of
> where we are at.
> 
> Harry
> 
> 
> 
> --- and <and at axxs.org> wrote:
> 
> > Hey,
> > 
> > On 17/05/2007, at 12:51 PM, harry tuttle wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi all,
> > > Its good to read all the ideas floating around.
> > Sorry,
> > > but due to other life stuff I havent organised a
> > > meeting. What about Saturday or Sunday the
> > 26th/27th
> > > maybe later in the afternoon. I guess we really
> > need
> > > to come  up with some kind of short term plan
> > while we
> > > work out the bigger picture/future of MIM.
> > 
> > Why not switch off publishing temporarily? That
> way
> > there is space to  
> > really stop and think about the project without
> > having to spend time  
> > managing trolls and dealing with other daily
> tasks.
> > It would also  
> > communicate to the community the extent of the
> > crisis, especially if  
> > it's explained on the front page, and be a
> mechanism
> > for gathering  
> > new people to get involved. If people think it
> will
> > just keep  
> > plodding along they won't be shaken out of their
> > apathy, a rupture  
> > needs to be created to break the current cycle and
> > begin new ways of  
> > thinking about the project, both for the
> collective
> > and the site users.
> > 
> > And.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > Harry
> > >
> > >
> > > --- musicman <datakid at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hola,
> > >>
> > >> I'm largely staying out of this debate because
> > I'm
> > >> incredibly busy as
> > >> it is, but I would flag this interesting
> article
> > by
> > >> Cory Doctorow of
> > >> boingboing fame:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
http://www.informationweek.com/shared/printableArticle.jhtml?
> > 
> > > articleID=199600005
> > >>
> > >> "How To Keep Hostile Jerks From Taking Over
> Your
> > >> Online Community
> > >>
> > >> Angry people looking for fights will inevitably
> > try
> > >> to poison
> > >> successful Internet communities. Columnist Cory
> > >> Doctorow looks at ways
> > >> to remove the poison without killing the
> > discussion
> > >> too. "
> > >>
> > >> I like some of the ideas in here - especially
> if
> > we
> > >> could implement
> > >> disemvowelling:
> > >>
> > >> "Troll whisperers aren't necessarily very good
> at
> > >> hacking tools, so
> > >> there's always an opportunity for geek synergy
> in
> > >> helping them to
> > >> automate their hand-crafted techniques, giving
> > them
> > >> a software
> > >> force-multiplier for their good sense. For
> > example,
> > >> Teresa invented a
> > >> technique called disemvowelling -- removing the
> > >> vowels from some or
> > >> all of a fiery message-board post. The
> advantage
> > of
> > >> this is that it
> > >> leaves the words intact, but requires that you
> > read
> > >> them very slowly
> > >> -- so slowly that it takes the sting out of
> them.
> > >> And, as Teresa
> > >> recently explained to me, disemvowelling part
> of
> > a
> > >> post lets the rest
> > >> of the community know what kind of sentiment is
> > and
> > >> is not socially
> > >> acceptable."
> > >>
> > >> L.
> > >>
> > >> On 5/17/07, Anna Helme <anna at engagemedia.org>
> > wrote:
> > >>> the other thing i would suggest is that if the
> > >> collective wants new
> > >>> software to do this:
> > >>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> ==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.
> > >>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> (as takver has outlined) then MIM should use
> the
> > >> money in the bank
> > >>> - am i right in thinking it's about $1000? if
> > not
> > >> i'm sure it wouldn't
> > >>> be too hard to get it up to that amount - to
> > *pay*
> > >> a developer to
> > >>> do this. MIM seems to do OK when it comes to
> > >> donations.
> > >>>
> > >>> you should be able to solve the major problem
> > MIM
> > >> is facing - the
> > >>> software - if you pay a developer now, and
> know
> > >> that you will have to
> > >>> use donations to pay for regular maintenance.
> > much
> > >> more sustainable
> 
=== message truncated ===



       
____________________________________________________________________________________Luggage? GPS? Comic books? 
Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz