Talk:Indymedia/Archive 2

message: This article has serious NPOV problems and needs to be thoroughly edited. While I sympathize with Indymedia, phrases like "amazing and grand experiment in democracy" are of course unacceptable. I'll slap an NPOV dispute header on the article until someone gets to it.--Eloquence*
: I cannot find this phrase, nor any of the individual words "amazing", "grand", "experiment", "democracy". Has this issue been addressed? Jrv 14:24, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Check out the history logs. (02:24 on Jul 17.) Emeraldimp 02:47, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV problems 

message: *Indymedia lacks representation from any currently Communist nation, or from most Muslim countries away from the Eastern Mediterranean
This statement seems odd to me; why is it under 'reputation'?  Also, the only nations that I would call Communist right now are North Korea and Cuba.  Since that category is so small, why not say that Indymedia lacks representation from Vanuatu while we are at it?  Perhaps it would be more appropriate to simply list Indymedia-represented countries in a separate section. --Bletch 15:33, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Representation 

message: First of all there is no such thing as a communist state, that's a contradiction.  And Palestine  and other countries have Indymedia's, saying most Muslim countries whatever that means is very selective, most third world countries don't have Indymedia, for obvious reasons.  The US government has gone to great trouble to try and keep places like Cuba and Muslim countries off the Internet, so it is a little ridiculous to try to prevent their Internet access on the one hand, while pointing a finger at them accusatively for not having an Indymedia site with the other.  Japan just got on Indymedia recently, so that less industrialized countries are not on it is not so odd. Ruy Lopez 08:58, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  where indymedias are 

message: I've removed three sections (The Case of IMCs Versus a Biased U.S. Corporate Press, Outstanding Examples: The Case of the Portland IMC, and Conclusion.)  These sections were Indymedia advocacy pieces, and were not encyclopediac in nature.  If they were on an external site, it would probably be worthwhile to link to them, but they were far from NPOV and definitely should not be inline in a Wikipedia article. --Bletch 03:58, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed editorial sections 

message: To date Indymedia lacks representation from any currently Communist nation, and from most countries dominated by Islam.
:My reason for removing that tidbit was not for concerns regarding accuracy, but I couldn't figure out how that tidbit enhanced the article.  That statement strikes me as extraneous; the article could have equally stated that "To date Indymedia lacks representation from France's former African colonies except Cameroon" or "To date Indymedia lacks representation from any nation beginning with the letters Q and V." (please excuse me if I happen to be factually incorrect on either of these examples) --Bletch 17:28, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  is this not true? 

message: I see your point Bletch.  The problem is this:
There are two groups of countries in the world; 
group A) is where Indymedia posters live. 
group B) is where no (or extremely few) Indymedia posters live.  
group A) Nations aren't perfect but lack the sort of problems faced by group B) Nations. 
This creates a blind spot in Indymedia's "global network"
As a result Indymedia attacks A) Nations and for the most part forgets the bad that happens in B) Nations
This is a bad thing because the governments that do the worst things are often in group B) Nations.
signed CD
:That does make sense.  Perhaps this take could somehow be integrated into the article somewhere? --Bletch 22:44, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  hope this makes sense 

message: Yes, I managed to mix up the first server with the last one, which was apparently seized by the FBI or similar (which also is apparently in the UK after further reading). My apologies. :(
On the blanking of the wikipedia comparison, I didn't think it was suitably useful when the article is already much Too large. I can see why you say that might be kept. I don't see any in "Role vis-à-vis international media networks" though. It's basically a paragraph saying "indymedia can't be bought", which is more than insinuated by the rest of the article anyway.
On the basis of the Article Size guidelines, I propose we create a sub article along the lines of Indymedia Server Seizures , taking the bulk of the sections on "Seizure of servers by the FBI", "Recent developments" and "More Recent News" and replacing it in the main article with a summary of the seizures in general, with a link to a much larger article on the seizures in general. Such as:
----
'''
"Indymedia servers have on numerous occasions been subject to law enforcement seizures blah blah blah.........................................................etc etc"'''
----
I believe this would allow for a greater scope on the seizures, while also removing the problem of article size.
Another possibility is taking the Wikipedia Indymedia comparison and the Wikipedia:Guide_for_Indymedia_authors, and expanding it and turning that into a sub article. Such an article also has scope for detail.
Either way, the article size must be cut from the current 30kb in some way and I think some sub articles are the way to go.
I won't do anything until this is properly discussed though.
Blightsoot 18:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Of NPOV and Splitting 

message: time to get rid of the the bias in this article.  I hope to reopen discussion here...i've made pretty sweeping changes, and feel that I can do a good job of filtering out the non-neutral parts of this article.  Comments?  Help?  Let's get this article up to speed! JamieJones 21:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  neutrality 

message: thanks, JamieJones.  Following your example, I've also tried to amend what I see as POV in this article, and also updated a few present tenses to past, etc.  Clicketyclack
 21:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  neutrality, cont'd 

message: So I'm hoping to take the NPOV tag down.  How about one week from now, unless there is any objection?  Thanks for help so far.  JamieJones 21:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Jamie, the entire article just reads like a PR hack piece for the organization.  All of the fanciful things the IMC does and how inclusive it is.  If there was a soundtrack, it would be "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing."  Try to make it less-cloying, please.  Morton devonshire 21:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Morton, I'm removing the POV tag until you can come up with some concrete examples of something that's POV in the page.  By all means please re-write any parts that you think are too saccharine or cloying though, so long as you can keep the edits to NPOV. Thanks. Clicketyclack 06:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried on at least 3 occasions to do that, and have been reverted each time.  You and Jamie are just too close to this subject to be objective.  I get very tired of editors camping on a page, thinking that they own an article, and continually revert changes intended to make a page more descriptive, and less congratulatory -- this seems to happen on pages that involve the extreme right and extreme left -- no room for middle of the road encyclopedic thinking?  I live and work in Seattle, and had a chance to see first-hand how the IMC was used during N30 -- it's not a news organization.  It's a very sophisticated, grass-roots PR tool that also happens to report news from another perspective.  That alternative media voice is valuable, just like right wing radio is valuable, in that it provides a challenge to mainstream reporting.  In the IMC's case, it's also a tool designed to manipulate the mainstream media -- please don't try to sugarcoat that.  Morton devonshire 00:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely not trying to sugar coat anything.  I'm definitely *NOT* a fan of Indymedia - but I was, and like you I guess, became totally disillusioned with it.  But, it deserves an article like anyone else, and so, I thought I'd give it my best shot since who better than someone who has been on both sides of indymedia support?  I definitely believe in the encyclopedic pillar, and i'll read it over now.  If you have any suggestions, let me know.  I don't think it reads like a PR hack piece, but i'll recheck.  And let's work together.
JamieJones  talk 12:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You are hopelessly subjective.  If you want to really understand the IMC in Seattle, go back and look at Seattle Times and PI accounts from November and December 1999.  Morton devonshire 02:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If there are sources to support your view, cite them. What I heard about the IMC in Seattle at the time is that it was intended primarily as an alternative media source, not as a PR organization aimed at the mainstream media (this is born out by the subsequent trajectory of the Indymedia network). Maybe I only heard a partial or distorted account, but if that is the case, you should be able to give us specific sources. VoluntarySlave 07:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: "Media Activist" "challenged as press entity"  "akin to a bulletin board" "posted security plans for a trade summit" "Ruckus Society organizers" Troy Skeels, founder of IMC, "printing anti-IMF literature"
*http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=A19991224010135&date=19991223&query=%22Independent+Media+Center%22
*http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=3002212&date=19991218&query=%22Independent+Media+Center%22
*http://seattlepi.com/local/22220_gag09.shtml?searchpagefrom=1&searchdiff=1732
*http://seattlepi.com/local/19980_security24.shtml
*http://seattlepi.com/local/wto091.shtml
*http://www.ratical.org///////////////co-globalize/NLG-REPORT.pdf
Morton devonshire 16:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: No-one is denying that Indymedia is partisan, the point I wanted sources for was the claim that it is "a grass-roots PR tool" "designed to manipulate the mainstream media." I don't see how any of those articles support that claim. VoluntarySlave 19:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously?  You don't see it?  Not trying to be facetious here.  Morton devonshire 21:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I really don't. If anything, I'd say they oppose your position. The first article describes the IMC as an "Alternative News Service" and talks about it involving "established media groups" and "Internet correspondents." The closest it comes to the idea that the IMC was intended to influence the mainstream media is the discussion of a documentary airing on public access TV. The second is about a film showing at the IMC, and has nothing to do with the mainstream media. The third article does quote a claim that Indymedia is not a news organization, but also includes denials of that claim (the article probably should mention this debate in the "reputation" section). The other Post-Intelligencer articles give examples of Indymedia's partisan connection to the anti-globalization movement, but they don't show that it is a PR organization directed at the mainstream media, rather than an alternative news source. VoluntarySlave 21:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see it either.  MortonsSockpuppet 22:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn you sockpuppet.  Get your act together and remember who you are.  Morton devonshire 22:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Note that the third article also calls Indymedia a "news collective".  All six are really useful links, and definitely belong in the article, so I'm adding them now.  Clicketyclack 22:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  how we doin? 

message: I have noticed recently that indymedia.org.uk has started to openly allow known and proscribed terror groups such as Earth First ( who call for the extermination of all but 200,000 or so people on Earth to let the ecosystems of the world 'recover') post their often delusionary rants on Indymedia, at the expense of credible journalistic material from more liberal ecoactivists. A group of us have commented on this only to have our material removed by unknown volunteer editors who currently seem to favour ecofascism, and thus would like to point our we feel that the materials on there shouldnt be seen as NPOV.
: The point isn't that Indymedia is NPOV, it's that the article should stay NPOV.  Do you like how the article reads...I'm all about making *the article* NPOV, not the organization itself.  Let me know.  JamieJones 01:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And, of course, Earth First isn't a 'known and proscribed terror group', nor does it call for exterminations. VoluntarySlave 21:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Earth first is not a proscribed terrorist group, doesnt engage in terrorism, and isnt considered a terrorist group by law enforcement. Only a few cranky right wing think tanks. There IS a list of proscribed terrorist groups, and if you looked it up, you'd find it. Earth first isnt on it. Earth Liberation Front may be, but the groups have almost nothing in common, other than greenies. And Earth first has NEVER called for the extermination of humans. Earth first considers humans to be animals, and earth first likes animals. 139.168.250.15 17:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent acceptance of terrorism on Indymedia.org.uk 

message: Made some big changes, up to seizures by FBI.  Clickety, what do you think? JamieJones  talk 13:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up 

message: Brad Will, a longtime volunteer with the NYC IMC was killed in Oaxaca, Mexico. From initial reports, it appears that a PRI-related gunman shot him down. Brad was unarmed, save with a video camera. The NYC IMC is developing coverage of his life, death and the popular movements he gave his life to bring to light. For initial reports, check nyc.indymedia.org; additional information will be posted here when appropriate. I am writing here from the NYC IMC. In the Stacks
:Yes, the article already mentions this. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 18:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indymedia journalist killed in Oaxaco 

message: In the Structure sub-section above, the claim is made that:
:"some IMCs have editorial policies to remove articles promoting hierarchy of any kind. Policies against hierarchy entail removal of articles promoting hierarchically-run groups and political parties, left-wing as well as right-wing."
There is no reference to this, and I have not heard this. Could someone post links to the stated editorial policy of examples? In the Stacks
That is definitely the policy of UK IMC (http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/static/editorial.html) Ad Nauseam 16:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, to state this clearly: one IMC has a policy of privileging anarchist doctrine... out of over 130 locals. The ref should be added to the claim. Unless there are others, it should say that one local has this policy... though adding notes on the political sub-policies of individual IMCs does seem a bit indulgent.In the Stacks 16:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just browsed the UK site and noticed that they have a special link of the front page for materials related to the Zapatistas, more formally known as the EZLN, or Zapatista Army of National Liberation. This organization has a command structure, and has killed people. It has several noted commanders and a well-known "subCommander." This organization is clearly organized along "hierarchical" lines, and has never claimed otherwise. It is, after all, an army. So it would appear that the UK Indymedia does, in fact, make allowances for hierarchical organizations. Are there any sites anyone is aware of that DO NOT allow posts from "hierarchical" organizations? In the Stacks 17:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm also a moderator for an IMC, and this UK caveat is news to me. However, as it is the policy of one IMC, and not global – it seems to be off the topic. Added to this is the direct link to information regarding the Zapatista Army of National Liberation, with its commanders and subcommanders, is most certainly a "hierarchical" organization by any definition of the word. What their intentions are is beside the point. So, if only one IMC has such a stated policy, it is not global – and it is enforced with clear inconsistency, it should be removed from the page. Conflating the policies of autonomous local groupings with the entirety of Indymedia is a mistake.In the Stacks 19:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure: editorial policies against "hierarchy" 

message: I have reverted the edits by User:James Force due to strong POV issues (and some minor spelling, grammar, and punctiation problems). James, here are the problems: 
1: first edit deleted useful links to Alternative society Mass media, and changed "which takes a generally left-wing perspective on political issues." to "It takes a strongly left-wing perspective on political issues and has been regulary accused of bias." This is simply not factual. It is the policy of IMC Global that all IMCs have an open publishing newswire which allows for anyone to publish, regardless of political viewpoint. 
2: "although is now discredited in much of the movement for its refusal to deal with broader issues as well as concern over its funding from the Ford Foundation and the George Soros Group.". This unsourced statement promotes a particular POV and violated WP:NPOV and WP:NOR and WP:V.
3: "although many of these are simply reposts of other sites with no real local content." Need an intro comma, and a source for this statement. 
4: "there is however no representation in countries such as Cuba, Saudi Arabia and Iran where repression of political dissent is common." First, there is the obvious problem: the first letter of a sentence should be capitalized. Next, there are plenty of IMCs popping up in places (like Mexico, Brazil, etc) where disidents suffer under strong political repression. 
5: ", a problem the network now faces itself in particular where Israel ans Jews are concerned.." Double period at the end, not sourced, not NPOV. Your edits 
6: "although of late an increasing emphasis on the more bizare explanations for the events of September 11 has seen Indymedia coverage discredited." Spelling, unsourced, POV.
7:  "indeed the sites are often accused of only supporting free speech when it is in supportive of them. Censorship and Editorial Policy remain the biggest problems for the credibility of Indymedia worldwide." The first sentence needs to begin with capitalization, and frankly, doesn't make sense. The second sentence may have merit, if it is sourced. 
8: "This has meant some IMC sites [(such as the UK pages)] have come under the control of small groups who do not reflect the broader viewpoint of the readership." This is interesting, as I have seen something like this happen at both Ithaca IMC and Binghamton IMC. However, as it is written, it needs work. The first part is good, but should and with something like "...small groups who do not reflect the diverse viewpoints of the readership or members." Still, I think this needs references or a better explaination. I think there is a complicated problem with consensus, which I could elaborate upon...
9: "(Note: Strong anti Israeli bias)" Need to cite references please, otherwise not NPOV.
Please address these problems, and please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Five pillars, Help pages, Tutorial, policy on citing sources, and Manual of Style. Otherwise, welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome your future contributions. -- Bhuston 16:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Way to respond in good faith! I think, however, that this person is mainly motivated not by any interest in documenting the Indpendent Media Center, but rather from a strong POV regarding Israel and political Zionism. This is tangential, aside from the vehemence that comes from those quarters. That Indymedia allows coverage from a diversity of perspectives far beyond what is typical in the USA says little. Much of this is just made up assumption and ideologically charged ranting. Very good of you to put the tutorials up so this person understands the collaborative nature of Wikipedia.In the Stacks 19:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by [[User:James Force]]