Talk:Independent Media Center

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Journalism (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


How and why one earth has the characterization of Indymedia being focused around an agenda of anti-capitalism made its way into this entry? That is not within Indymedia's core mission or points of unity, and while there are certainly stories with anti-capitalist agendas and frameworks contributed to Indymedia, there are also stories that advocate very different positions and viewpoint.

The central organizing theme of Indymedia is citizen, grassroots, activist journalism. Under that umbrella there's a wide, wide diversity of political and ideological possible and evident in Indymedia work. Attempts at sweeping ideological characterizations is neither accurate nor NPOV acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Changes Sept 2008[edit]

  • Added photo gallery -photos where a;ready on wikimedia.
  • added social software section
  • started radio & video section -Needs more work.
  • changed some photos -Needs more work.
((i)) This user participates in an Independent Media Center.

Changes August 2007[edit]

The 3 disputes at the top should be moved down to the section marked "Attacks on Indymedia", marco.
I need a rest after this last lot of activity.

  • There's still work to be done on (IMHO) the overall structure, especially around the Org Structure section.
  • There's references still to be chased down and tidied up, should be obvious where.
  • External links should be trimmed
  • the article is still too long. I think the Attacks on Journalists and Server Seizures sections can be spun off into their own articles

Two useful links reflecting on IMC that I haven't had time to incorporate into the "Criticism" section:

Chaikney 19:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup and copyedit needed[edit]

This article is not compliant with Wikipedia content policies, as it based mostly on primary sources as well as containing substantial original research (as for example the comparison with Wikinews). Unless secondary sources are forthcoming, this article needs to be paired down to what can be attributed to reliable sources, in addition to the primary sources originating from this website. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I re-read the article, and I am quite concerned about the lack of sources and the lack of compliance. I am replacing the cleanup tags with {{noncompliant}}. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

POV consider themselves to be independent journalists[edit]

This has the definate tone of "they call themselves journalists". It is rather POV. Since freedom of the press is an inalienable right and one does not need a license to "practice journalism", that is, report what they see. It seems that some, YES some people want to consider those without a journalism degree as somehow not being qualified to report what they see with their own eyes. This line of thinking makes a degree a de facto license to do journalism. Being also open source, wikipedia should know this. 02:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Bias in the caption for the photo of the greek policeman[edit]

Does anyone else think that the caption for the photo of the Greek policeman "attacking" an indymedia protester is just ever so slightly biased?

Rmkf1982 Talk 14:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

So change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wachholder0 (talkcontribs)
Hi, I am the one who uploaded the picture from athens.indymedia to wikipedia and I also added the photo to the page and wrote the caption. Could you please specify exactly what it is that you find biased? I used the word "attack" as the officer is doing exactly that, holding the baton upside-down. For further information please refer to the image's description page and the athens.indymedia pages linked to from there. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 10:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
"A Greek riot policeman attacking an Indymedia photographer. The policeman holds his service baton from the reverse end aiming to injure rather than to repel."
That's what I find biased - you're accusing a policeman of attacking someone with the aim to cause harm - that's a pretty serious charge to be making against someone who can't defend himself here. There is nothing to say what the circumstances were - the officer could have been acting to defend himself after being attacked himself, we don't know. The point is, making judgements like that against people is unnecessary - surely a more neutral caption would be better for an encyclopedia article - Wikipedia is not Indymedia after all.
Rmkf1982 Talk 22:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
For more information about the circumstances of the event, as I noted above, please take a look at the athens.indymedia article linked to from the image description page. Sure, it is in Greek, but there are many many photos. Here is a direct link: [1], and some more articles linked to from the main indymedia article: [2], [3].
The photo was taken at of the Courts of Athens, when (for the first time in Greek history) Police fired teargas inside the Courts complex that even reached the courtrooms against the parents and colleagues of circa 50 students that were arrested during a student demonstration on March 8 2007. Their trial started on March 12 (when the photos were taken), and ended two or three weeks ago, with all the students being acquitted. The story is pretty much this: the 50 students were all brought to trial together at a very small courtroom that could carry no more than about 100 people. The courtroom was therefore packed with the defendants and the policemen brought forth as accusing witnesses. The students' parents and colleagues were not allowed entry to the courtroom, to which they reacted trying to force their way in, to which the police reacted violently.
Concerning the specific photo. By Greek law, it is illegal for the police to use their batons upside down (the lower side, the handle is solid metal and can cause serious injury, while the upper side is layered with rubber). As you can see by the photo, and more clearly by a consecutive photo, the policeman is holding the baton upside down. The photos made it to the news of national TV networks, and major journalists made a big fuss about it.
Now, apart from all this, which is the context. I understand that what I originally wrote can be perceived as trying to read the officer's mind. But I cannot really imagine what else he could be trying to do, using the baton upside down. The law is very specific in prohibiting such use of batons for precisely that reason.
Anyway, and for the sake of synthesis, how do you think we could improve the caption?
--Michalis Famelis (talk) 09:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
This photo is quite well known in Greece and has been used in Greek newspapers and TV channels. All of them were reporting exactly what Michalis Famelis says above: the policeman is attacking and -as you can see- he is using his baton upside down (!). --Michkalas 10:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
OK - Well first of all, thank you for being civil about this, responding to my concerns in detail, and seeking compromise. Unfortunately, my experience has been that some people have vested interests in their photos or articles and can become quite agressive.
I must admit to not having followed the links to the other articles you referenced but having read the information you added above, it seems pretty clear that we're not looking at a case of bias at all.
In terms of improving the caption / article, my suggestion would be that what you have said above about Greek law prohibiting the use of the batons in this manner, and the background to the event, should go in the article, or should be referenced in some way - I know this is not an article about the specfic events that took place in Athens so maybe the full detailed account wouldn't be appropriate (crete a new article perhaps?). What you have said above basically answers any questions that I could see anyone having, if like me, they arrived at this article, looked at the caption, and thought "bias". With all the information to hand, it's clear that its not biased but is quite factual. It's perhaps the amount of information that's crammed into the caption that makes it look biased when in fact it may just be trying to do too much in a small space.
How about creating a new section (unless I'm missing one that's already there) dealing with the events in Athens - maybe a paragraph describing what you wrote above, including the information about Greek law - obviously with a reference so that people know it's verifiable. Then put the photo within the new section, with a shorter caption. That way, all the information is contained in the article, clearly described, and people can place the image in the context of the events that took place, and as a result can reach the same conclusion you did i.e. that the officer was at best wantonly breaking Greek law, or at worst, aiming to severely hurt as you say. The new section might be quite topical at the moment as well if the trial has just ended a few weeks ago.
What do you think? Thanks. Rmkf1982 Talk 20:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for a new section and the wording wont change. The police man is trying to hit the photographer, as the photograph suggest. You are the one who has to provide proof that the police-man isn't trying to use force. I can't believe that there are arguments raised for it, the guy is clearly ready to use force. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:57, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Imclogo.gif[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Imclogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

addition of links[edit]

A user is attempting to add two links. One is to a personal website of an individual who has claimed he was "banned" from DC Indymedia, the other is the ideological website of a political organization. The addition of partisan links of this nature into the entry on the IMC is simply advertising for groups the individual is partisan to. Should all such organizations be added, it would become contentious. In these two particular cases, one is a political group (not "independent") and the other is owner/operated. In either case, they are not relevent and should not be added.In the Stacks 18:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that if there were very many such organisations, the selection of a few would be partisan and contentious, but as far as I am aware there are few organisations of this type notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. Your statement that "one is a political group" and "the other is owner/operated" is entirely irrelevant - the question is whether or not these are related articles. I think they are similar articles - primarily north american, vaguely lefty/anarchist media/publishing outlets. I think that the links provide a definite navigational aid to similar articles per Wikipedia criteria for See Also sections. As such, I am restoring the links until a reasonable argument is made to the contrary. Skomorokh incite 18:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
This is an entry on Indymedia. Not various websites. They are not IMCs, and scores of groups have actively participated with Indymedia Having an entry on Wikipedia is not a measure of "notability", especially when they are maintained by the interested parties. In the Stacks 18:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Neither site is "open-publishing". Also worth a mention.In the Stacks 18:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't see anything at all relevant in your comments. I did not claim that having an article on Wikipedia was a measure of notability. My point was that the topic of the article Indymedia and the topics of the articles CrimethInc. and Infoshop are related and thus consistent with the Wikipedia criteria for See Also sections. Skomorokh incite 19:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of recent attempts at wikification[edit]

I just tried to integrate all the raw links into the references section, correct spellings, remove redundant categories and wikify section headings. User:In The Stacks has (possibly inadvertently) reverted my edits and I cannot restore them without violating 3RR. I'd appreciate if someone else would. Thanks, Skomorokh incite 19:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

That's my bad. I didn't mean to do that. On the same topic, the "Indymedia Journalist Homocide" title is ridiculous. Some guy used open-publishing to (allegedly) post some confession to an unrelated crime. That's like putting a section on an entry about telephones regarding a "Telephone Killer" because he told someone he'd done whatever. Is the 3RR thing done by robots? In the Stacks 19:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
No worries, not to sure how the 3RR thing works but I think you've reverted my See Also edits 3 times now so you could be in breach. I didn't make the "Indymedia journalist homicide" thing a section, it was already there - but according to WaPo it's legit. P.S. Could some third party please change the article back? Thanks Skomorokh incite 19:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Ref tags[edit]

This article doesn't use reference footnotes correctly (or at all). There's a references section, but no reference tags are used! Thus, the reference section is empty. Timneu22 12:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


I am removing what I assume to be vandalism (though not in bad fiath) of the article, it is at least badly writen, in the wrong place, an opinion and unsubstantiated as far as I see. Although it might be intresting for people who are actually intrested in Indymedia, I am really just seeing what it is at the moment, the vandalism is here: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Reference 22(should link to editorial policy) is trolling... It links to ""(dead link) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Dec 2007 cuts[edit]

Info preserved here so that it can be reliably sourced and re-integrated:

Subsequently, a townhall meeting was held at the University of Houston in response to the alleged police abuse where HPD Assistant Chief Martha Montalvo was present, alongside a police sergeant from Special Operations. Mayor Bill White and members of the Houston City Council were invited, but a staff member from the Office of Houston City Controller Annise Parker showed up since a member of HPD's Citizens Review Committee was present. One photographer who photographed the HPD Mounted Patrol jumping their horses on the sidewalk had two of his pictures used in the Houston Press (the anonymous photographer would photograph the anti-KKK rally in Tomball, TX on 6.11.05 that prompted his retirement from photojournalism). It is alleged that Scott Parkin was rowdy when he shoved police barricades (as seen by a photographer) right before relocating to Australia and later deported in September 2005.[citation needed]
On June 20, 2005, Ernesto Torres, a journalist with Indymedia Rosario and Free Air Community Radio, was assaulted [4] by members of the pro-government group Movimiento Barrios de Pie, while covering a march in opposition to the regime of the Argentinian president Néstor Kirchner.

Skomorokh incite 20:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The image caption[edit]

It's really not clear from the image itself who is being threatened. It appears to me that the cameraman could be some distance away: it's not radically wide-angle, and it contains his whole body. From the other pictures, the riot police were behind a wall and towered above the crowd. It's quite possible that the policeman was threatening someone closer to the wall below him. We really can't draw conclusions about where the baton was "aimed." I agree with Jossi's version. We should stick to verifiable claims. Cool Hand Luke 22:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Bad sentence[edit]

"While some[attribution needed] criticize Indymedia for adopting a position hostile to the interests of capital, others believe that this is the purpose of the media."

This doesn't make any sense to me. What is meant by "media"? Indymedia? If so the sentence should read

"While some[attribution needed] criticize Indymedia for adopting a position hostile to the interests of capital, others believe that this is Indymedia's rightful purpose."

Also, can someone tell me where it was decreed that Wikipedia can't use Indymedia as a source? Is anyone else here a bit angry about that, or is my frustration just naive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Indymedia languages[edit]

The main Indymedia has articles in several languages (English, German, French, etc), but there are sub-domains in other languages, too, like Does anybody has the time to sort things out? Kenshin (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


Three weeks ago, a merger of whatever content from Bristol Indymedia that was salvagable as notable into this article was proposed. See Talk:Bristol Indymedia#Merge into Indymedia. That is ample time for anyone who wanted to object to do so; only one voice has been raised in opposition, user:Jezhotwells, and WP:NOTUNANIMITY is clear that a single dissenting vote does not forestall consensus. Consensus therefore supports the merger, something I sought and received confirmation of at WP:CNB#Consensus and the merger of Bristol Indymedia into Indymedia.

To sharpen the point, I should note: consensus is that Bristol Indymedia should cease to exist as an independent article, that its page be redirected here, and that its remains be interred in this article. Whether the editors of this article choose to keep some, all, or none of that material is beyond the scope of consensus.

The merger has, accordingly, proceeded. dif What you do with this material during its stay here, I leave to you.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW }

There was no consensus for this merger, for further details please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Merger_dispute_.2F_Actions_of_User:Simon_Dodd. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
An RfC has been opened. Discussion at Talk:Bristol Indymedia. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
For the record, there was consensus for the merger, as several editors have told Jez (apart from myself, he was told this at WP:CNB#Consensus and the merger of Bristol Indymedia into Indymedia by User:David_Fuchs, user:Iridescent, and user:KillerChihuahua, and at Talk:Bristol Indymedia#Rfc by user:Hans_Adler and user:DGG). Jez may have stonewalled the merger, but he won't be allowed to play down his accomplishment.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • After a full run for Jez's RFC, the consensus has grown stronger and the merge has accordingly proceeded again. My remarks above are reinstated.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Transcluded from Talk:Bristol Indymedia[edit]


why the hell would you delete this article?? Genjix (talk) 09:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

I have made some edits to improve the article and also properly cited some sections. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Rfc on Merger proposal into Independent Media Center[edit]

Has consensus been established for merging Bristol Indymedia into Independent Media Centre? Jezhotwells (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Although Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bristol Indymedia (2nd nomination) has been stonewalled (something explicitly forbidden by WP:GAME), it remains beyond serious contest--indeed, remains substantively uncontested--that this article's subject is non-notable. Or, at very best, the article is a tiny notability tail (the server seizure) wagging a huge dog of an article, and thus masssively fails WP:UNDUE. Perhaps a new tack is required. Since AFD has proven incapable of dealing with this article, I suggest we follow the counsel of several commenters on the nomination: a merge and redirect to Indymedia.

user:Snigbrook said it well:

Although [this article] may just about meet the guidelines, much of the content doesn't appear to be notable and can be removed, and without secondary coverage, it is unclear whether the selection of incidents in the "Bristol Indymedia Ongoing" section accurately represents the organisation so it should probably be removed. The rest is either non-notable or similar enough to the main Indymedia article, so in my opinion a redirect, and possibly merge some of the content, would still be the most appropriate decision

user:Hans Adler suggested (among several good points) that we trim away the fat and merge, "(if there is anything left to merge) to Indymedia. ... The server seizure was notable, but ... [i]t was just one event, and I think it makes most sense to see it as an attack on Indymedia in general, not specifically on Indymedia Bristol. So it makes most sense to discuss it at Indymedia, as is done already, where it can be put in the wider context including the similar event in the US." user:S_Marshall was also for a "[m]erge and redirect to Indymedia. I agree with the nominator that [Bristol Indymedia] is insufficiently notable to justify a separate article. However, it is verifiable that Bristol Indymedia exists and does exactly what it says on the tin, so WP:PRESERVE should apply. ¶ In such cases, I'm persuaded by Uncle G's reasoning in User:Uncle G/On notability, and would refer you to that essay for very detailed arguments in support of this approach."

I therefore propose that any content in Bristol Indymedia that is amenable to inclusion in Indymedia, and which is not duplicative of material already there, be merged into the latter, and the former be redirected to the latter. This ought to satisfy all parties since it will preserve both an encyclopedia entry for Bristol Indymedia while mollifying the fatal notability problems of a standalone article thereupon. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Disagree. The editor above, having been unsuccessful in a deletion debate closed today is attempting to delete the article by other means. I note also that the corresponding merge into banner has not been placed on the Independent Media Center article as is required for merge proposals. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Oops! Thanks for the heads up on the banner. It's been added over there, too.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
That simply restates what I said. It is not the damning closing argument you seem to think. Yes, after you succesfully stonewalled the AFD by presenting spurious claims of notability, this compromise -- preserving such material that has a claim to notability and a Wikipedia entry on the organization, just not in a seperate article -- is the next-best alternative. This article ought to be deleted entirely, but if a few Indymedia partisans are determined to thwart that fate, it should have a WP:UNDUE buzzsaw through it, to cut away those things that don't relate to credible arguments for notability (given your comments at the AFD, notability is a concept you don't yet seem to understand, Jez - the essay by user:Uncle G cited above will help explain it to you. Notability is not fame nor importance). Or, and I think this is the best option of those available, this situation is a textbook candidate for WP:MERGE. Once the fat - and the obfuscatory nonsense you added in an attempt to create a mirage of notability - is trimmed away, depending on how much is left of the article, it will quite obviously qualify for at least three and possibly all four of WP:MERGE's examples of reasons for merger. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't believe that this article should be merged. The wide coverage in a variety of newspapers indicates sufficient notability and sufficient material for a proper article. Shell babelfish 02:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Please cite specific examples of "coverage in a variety of newspapers" satisfying WP:N and WP:ORG. A vague, generalized assertion of notability doesn't merit serious consideration - links are not notability. The notability guidelines are explicit in what they require and nothing cited in this article - with the possible and singular exception of the server seizure - demonstrates it. So I question your claim. Specifically: WHAT INDICATES NOTABILITY? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Hmm - looks like those articles are only in connection with the seizure. Some of the other references given as mainstream media sources were actually reprints of articles by Indymedia which was a little misleading. I stand corrected - seems reasonable to merge anything on the seizure into the main article but little else that is verifiable by a secondary source currently exists in the article Shell babelfish 04:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Thankyou. You have done exactly what other editors should have done: instead of being impressed by the smokescreen created by Jez, to create a superficial aura of notability, you took the time to actually check the sources and realize how farcially thin the claims for notability are. Would that more editors be more like you, Shell.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Third opinion

I am responding to a request for a third opinion.

Typically the most direct means of initiating a merge proposal is the use of the {{Mergeto}} and {{Mergefrom}} templates. A request for comment may invite further discussion. — Athaenara 09:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The merge was proposed using those templates. I'm not sure what the utility is of RFC over 3O? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 12:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Third opinion#How to list a dispute mandates a brief neutral description and says "Do not discuss on this page: confine the discussion to the talk page where the dispute is taking place." An appropriate listing would read like this:

# Talk:Bristol Indymedia#Merge into Indymedia. Disagreement about whether or not the Bristol Indymedia article should be merged with the main Indymedia article. [timestamp]

Here's your 3O request (diff):

# Talk:Bristol Indymedia#Merge into Indymedia. Bristol Indymedia is non-notable; at best, the article is a [[tiny notability tail wagging a huge dog of an article. Nevertheless, an AFD was successfully stonewalled. [5] Several editors participating in the AFD proposed that instead of deletion, whatever could be salvaged be merged into Indymedia. I have proposed just that at the talk page, and although it's my view that we already have sufficient consensus for the merge, I'd like to get some third, fourth, etc. opinions before proceding, please. 00:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You asserted that you want more opinions. That's what RFCs are for. If you think a 3O would be sufficient, you can relist it with a brief neutral description. — Athaenara 20:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Shrug* I listed it at RFC too. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
As you did not complete the procedure properly, I have done it for you. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree with merger All those newspapers sources look like passing mentions. Merge the server seizure thing, which is actually notable, into Indymedia as proposed. Belonging to Indymedia is what gives notability to all these local chapters. (I spotted this merger discussion at the content noticeboard, where, now that I re-read it after writing my comment, people are saying to merge it already) --Enric Naval (talk) 04:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Merger completed[edit]

The above merger was proposed three weeks ago. That is ample time for anyone who wanted to object to do so; only one voice has been raised in opposition, user:Jezhotwells, and WP:NOTUNANIMITY is clear that a single dissenting vote does not forestall consensus. Consensus therefore supports the merger, something I sought and received confirmation of at WP:CNB#Consensus and the merger of Bristol Indymedia into Indymedia. The merger has, accordingly, proceeded. Merged viable content into recipient articleDonor article redirected- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW }

One proposal of merger does not constitute consensus either. Your merger has been reverted. And your RfC is still open. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
The merger was proposed, three weeks is more than enough time for anyone to register objections, and so the consensus of AFD contributors plus myself, plus the silence of the community other than yourself (see WP:NOTUNANIMITY), constitutes consensus. And I'm not saying this as my opinion, either: I asked, in order to be sure that I was correctly understanding WP:CON, and was advised that consensus did exist for the merger. See WP:CNB#Consensus and the merger of Bristol Indymedia into Indymedia. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I've got a bit of experience determining consensus and I'd have to say there isn't one here yet. Sometimes it doesn't happen as fast as we'd like - things can languish for months on less popular articles - has anyone tried a neutrally worded note at wikiprojects that might have an interest in the article? Shell babelfish 02:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
No one has objected except Jez! If three weeks isn't sufficient time for the community to speak through silence, why does AFD typically wait only seven days? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually I've just objected too but yes, it can be frustrating to get so little input into a proposal like this. AfDs do run 7 days but are often relisted if not enough people respond - sometimes it takes a little legwork to get other folks interested in opining on a particular question. If there's an RfC open and you're not getting much response, you might consider if the RfC could be reworded or if a requested move/merge discussion might generate more interest. I think I also mentioned wikiprojects as another possibility for additional input. Shell babelfish 03:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I have posted re the RfC (which had not been properly nominated at WP:RfC on the relevant projects of Bristol Indymedia nd Independent Media Centre and also those editors who took part in the AfD discussion. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Erm - are you sure you wanted to post the RfC in the Wikipedia policy category? I would have thought maybe "Economy, trade, and companies" or "Art, architecture, literature and media" Shell babelfish 09:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, there needs to be a statement of the dispute beneath the tag or its not going to pick things up properly. Shell babelfish 09:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I hope that I have got it right now. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
For reference, the CN thread was archived here. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


It doesn't make much sense to have an RfC only on the technical point of whether consensus has been established already. We need a solution, not a perpetuation of the problem. Therefore it's actually more important to discuss here whether to merge the article, and to establish a clear consensus one way or the other.

On the technical point: I believe that Simon Dodd was right – there was a consensus to merge. I am not entirely sure this is still the case, since now Neutralhomer has joined Jezhotwells in opposing it, apparently [6] [7] under the impression that the present article has an appropriate level of detail backed up by reliable sources. The reality is different. Here is a breakdown of the article's content:

  • About BIMC: One paragraph consisting of a literal quotation of a BIMC mission statement, and something said by a BIMC contributor in a now deleted interview with a computer website about alternative news in general. One paragraph made up almost entirely of quotations from BIMC contributors sourced to BIMC pages. The one exception is a concrete illustration of how Indymedia works in general, sourced to a now deleted article by a Bristol songwriter about social trends in Bristol.
  • A History of BIMC and Related Events: A short paragraph on BIMC's creation (sourced to BIMC). A second paragraph about BIMC and the Iraq war (generic information applying equally to other IMC projects), sourced to an IMC-like Christian project. A third paragraph about a police investigation (sourced to the local newspaper), two BIMC PR events (sourced to a participating organisation and BIMC itself), and another BIMC-organised event (sourced to the local newspaper).
  • Server Seizure: Two paragraphs on a notable event. Excellent sources present, although 3/4 of the details are sourced to BIMC.
  • Bristol Indymedia Ongoing: Two excessively detailed paragraphs (some sourced to BIMC, some unsourced). A third excessively detailed paragraph about a site relaunch (sourced to BIMC and what seems to press release type coverage in the local newspaper and on the local BBC site).
  • Media comment: A short paragraph listing extremely trivial mentions by 3 reliable sources. A paragraph with a "graphic example of how journalists and bloggers read other blogs for story ideas" (sourced to a local PR company's blog). Two instances of reliable sources using BIMC as a source. A paragraph quoting the two-sentence mention by a local student guide in full, and giving an example of a reliable source using BIMC as a source twice.
  • Other Indymedia Centres: The one sentence here that arguably relates to BIMC is sourced to a now deleted interview of a computer website with a BIMC contributor.

The obvious reason why all this cruft is still in the article is that it's easier to get rid of it by merging it than to engage in foreseeable attrition warfare with Jezhotwells about individual paragraphs.

This article is like an article about a McDonald's restaurant. Two years ago someone was shot in it, so it was mentioned in the press and even on TV. And that's used as an excuse to keep an article which then fills space by quoting generic statements such as "Our kids just love to come here, so it's well worth the drive from Barrington to Footown." Hans Adler 11:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Correction of fact: .net (magazine) is a print magazine published by Future Publishing in the UK, not a computer website. The article was archived as is frequently the case with print media sources. The "songwriter" you refer to is Eugene Byrne, a local journalist, who was commissioned to write articles for the Brunel 200 celebrations by the Bristol Cultural Development Partnership. I have a hard copy of the print leaflet that contained this. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I have to say that local news sources are, well, local. and that if the website wasn't a branch of Indymedia then it most probably wouldn't even appear in their radar. Also, local newsites tend to cover local stuff by saying how inmensely good it is and how innovative it is, with no perspective of how small their local world is in relation to the global thing (I think that they do this in purpose, mind you, they are not going to say that the new supermarket is ten times smaller than the one in the capital, they are going to say that it's so big and beautiful). For example, not taking notice that was launched in 2000, 1 year before bristol's, so it wasn't so innovative because it was "just" one more local chapter of indymedia, and Indymedia had already been existing since 1999, so people in the internets already had like 2 full years to post there in the same way that they could post in Bristol's website.
When looking at the sources, I also noticed that sources that are considered influent in the tech world (The Register) only mentions the website when the server seizure happened, and that it makes so much incidence in being an Indymedia server, and Bristol's website being part of Indymedia. BBC Bristol, wich would be the following source in quality, has four mentions. One is for the server seizure [8], one is a passing mention while covering other local magazine[9] one is a short article on a section called "city life"[10], and one is simply an entry on "our list of external web links of interest to people in and around Bristol"[11]. And, of course, we are talking about the local part of BBC, not the national one. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

There was a consensus to merge, and that still remains the best option. As usual, better to have one strong article. Though I !voted keep at the AfD, I said the sources seemed barely sufficient to show notability of the Bristol centre. There's a lot of duplication between the two articles. There's a good deal of excessive detail also in both, to the extent that I well understand why people might have wanted to delete this article. The details of what happened with the FBI , & the UK police, are not really encyclopedic content. No matter how highly one thinks of their activities, some of this belongs on their own website. Some friendly but extensive copyediting for conciseness is needed on both articles. DGG (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

If anything, the problem has become more acute, because Jez keeps blowing air into the article, adding more fluff and fondant in (so far as I can tell) a desperate bid to create a veneer of notability by sheer volume of material. But as soon as one takes the time to look at those references, as Shell did above, one realizes just how gossamer the illusion of notability really is. Hans' McDonalds analogy above is perfect. We have a barely-notable event as an anchor (one that is already given appropriate coverage in the indymedia article) straining to hold this immense Flying Dutchman of fancruft that Jez has tethered to it.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 18:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

30 days have passed - no one else has posted here. User:Simon Dodd keeps claiming that the result of the most recent Afd was merge. No it wasn't - it was no consensus. Anyone can see that by reading the discussion linked above. Likewise there is no consensus here. Banners removed. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous.
For the merger
Simon Dodd, Shell (was initially against, but then looked closer), Enric Naval, Hans Adler, DGG.
Against the merger
I see a very clear pattern here. I guess you are the only one who doesn't see it. Hans Adler 11:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
For the record, it is a strawman - let's call a spade a spade, it's a lie - to say that I "keep[] claiming that the result of the most recent Afd was merge" - I have never said that, and have repeatedly rejected it (see the CNB thread linked below, for example).- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Merger: take 2[edit]

A month ago, there was consensus for this article to be merged into Indymedia. user:Jezhotwells objected that there wasn't, but was told otherwise by myself in various places, at WP:CNB#Consensus and the merger of Bristol Indymedia into Indymedia by user:David_Fuchs, user:Iridescent, and user:KillerChihuahua, and at Talk:Bristol Indymedia#Rfc by user:Hans_Adler and user:DGG. WP:NOTUNANIMITY is very clear that unanimity is not a prerequisite of consensus, and that one lone holdout can't thwart consensus.

Nevertheless, Jez filed an RFC on the proposed merger, and at the suggestion of user:Enric_Naval at the afore-linked CNB thread, I agreed to wait out the RFC's run.

Ask not for which article the bell tolls. Every single user who has commented here since the last merger attempt has supported merging the articles. Jez continues to be the lone holdout. There was consensus to merge then; there must, a fortiori, be an even stronger consensus to merge now. The merger will accordingly proceed forthwith.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment on merger[edit]

Stop making such large detailed posts flooding the entire page with your merging poll. I am not reading that wall of text to vote and I don't think many other people will. You're effectively trying to obtain a positive consensus through obfuscation. In any case, why the personal crusade against this page? Do you have history against them?

I guess it's far easier for people to destroy rather than create content. Hope you feel proud of your contributions to this knowledge resource Wikipedia. Genjix (talk) 02:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately this battle was lost some time ago and the article was merged following Wikipedia procedures. I received no support when contesting the merger. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 03:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Popular and often-using media for leftwing-extremists[edit]

The Verfassungsschutz in Germany, Switzerland and Austria Characterizing indy-media as far-left.-- (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Updates 2014[edit]

This whole page needs updating. 1. reseizure of Bristol servers and closure of Bristol Indymedia this year. 2. The growing use of Facebook and Twitter instead of Indymedia and it's actual decline

Updates 2015[edit]

There are very few new articles on Indymedia these days.

The Global Indymedia project has come to an end in real terms.

File:Imclogo2.gif Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Imclogo2.gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


SantiLak added a number of tags to the article. In order to do anything with these, I'm hoping he/she will explain them here and possibly suggest some ways to address the issues? --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I was going to address them today so thank you for reminding me. On the unreliable sources tag, there are multiple sources from places such as World Socialist Website and Ratical that need to be replaced with RS's because those sources are not reliable and there also tend to be a lot of primary sources which while not against policy, it would be better if they could be replaces with third party reliable sources. I think I can just combine the other two tags explanation because the way they are written is why I dispute their neutrality. When I read through it, it just seems very promotional. I plan to address the issues by doing a quick read through of the article looking for that kind of promotional language and clean it up as well as researching reliable sources to replace the primary and unreliable sources. I will probably do that in the next couple of days and then remove the tags. - SantiLak (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites and SantiLak:I've tried to make the language more neutral and feel it is okay now and not promo. Therefore, I have removed those tags (also note that Indymedia collectives don't usually sell anything). Regarding the reliability of the sources, I've not dug into that issue yet.Jonpatterns (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Also, there is still duplication of information. The structure of the article could be improved to avoid covering the same ground twice.Jonpatterns (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Independent Media Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Independent Media Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Independent Media Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Independent Media Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Total overhaul needed[edit]

Disclosure: as it says on my user page, I was involved in Indymedia. This included participating in a number of working groups of the Global Network of IMCS (including being one of the founders of the AlternativesIMC working group), and I was also one of the founders of the Aotearoa Indymedia Media network of collective that set up So anything I say here should be considered in that light.

This article has changed a lot since I last looked at it. No doubt most of that was well-meaning, attempting to tidy up the article to keep it in line with evolving Wikipedia norms. However, I can't help but think a lot of the significance of the Indymedia project has been lost in the process. I think it needs a first principles rethink. Looking back on the years I spent working with Indymedia, there are a number of things that seem notable to me. I started to write about them here, but it just got too long, so I've moved it to my own wiki[1], and it will probably become a blog piece (note: all dates for the launching of websites and organisations are sourced from their Wikipedia pages). Danylstrype (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

More references[edit]

'Reconstructing the Internet: How Social Justice Activists Contest Technical Design in Cyberspace' from MC Journal: --Danylstrype (talk) 04:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^