Talk:Indymedia/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Indymedia. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

NPOV problems

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)

Check out the history logs. (02:24 on Jul 17.) Emeraldimp 02:47, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

political identity

I reverted the change that claims Indymedia is "strongly anarchist" instead of left-wing, which is far more accurate. There is no anarchist basis of unity to participate in Indymedia or to start and IMC. Anarchists have played a significant role throughout the network, but by general agreement it is an open and non-sectarian network that makes no single ideological claim. That would be antithetical to the purpose -- Be The Media.

Checking through the edit history, this insertion of "strongly anarchist" was very recent, and does not reflect any change in the network as a whole. Greens, communists, socialists, liberals and many not-so-specific radicals -- all of a roughly left-wing perspective -- participate. In the Stacks

I think some revision is needed

I think there's a little bias interjected throughout the article.

"Local IMC collectives are expected to be open and inclusive of individual members of a variety of different local left-wing, right-wing, anarchist and other activist organizations, whether or not these have any overt political labels, so that even those without internet access can participate both in content creation and in content consumption."

This statement is a bit laughable. The local collectives are expected to censor right-wing posts. For example, here's a post by a moderator from the lists:

http://archives.lists.indymedia.org/imc-us-process/2004-February/000420.html

"We are under near constant attack by enemies from across the political spectrum, including Zionists, Nazis, and especially grassroots rightwingers, who use their own websites to organize coordinated attacks."

Here's another page:

http://indybay.org/news/2002/08/139500.php

When describe posts they hide, they say "right-wing propaganda or hate speech;"

Here's just one of many examples:

http://nyc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/102260/index.php

Now, take a look at all the posts on that article and their bias, then look at the hidden posts:

http://nyc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/102358/index.php

http://nyc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/102337/index.php

http://nyc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/102335/index.php

http://nyc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/102333/index.php

http://nyc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/102331/index.php

All those are listed as "policy viloations"

The Wikipedia article constantly states that it is an open system, and while the anyone can post, the posts are STRICTLY moderated in order to keep with the websites' pro far leftist agenda. I think this article needs a little more revision to specifically state what the IMC is for.

I have to agree, having worked with IMC collectives. The open system died quickly in the face of complaints about Neo-Nazis and the like making extensive use of the forum. Furthermore it's never been really obvious to me that IMC people really intended it to ever be anything other than a mouthpiece for leftwing voices, no matter their claims to the contrary. Graft 04:24, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately all the above links are now broken, so can't respond to any of those points. But a read of the FAQ [[1]]sheds some light on what IMC is meant for. Quote: "'Should I believe news I read on Indymedia?' Should you believe news you read on CNN.com? All reporters have their own biases; governments and massive for-profit corporations that own media entities have their own biases as well, and often impose their views on their reporters (or their reporters self-censor to conform their own biases to those of their employer). You should look at all reports you read on the Indymedia site with a critical eye, just as you should look at all media before you in a discerning manner... True, many Indymedia organizers and people who post to the sites have political opinions that fall along the left side of the political spectrum, yet each individual chooses his/her own level of involvement; there's nothing in any Indymedia mission statement that declares people who are involved must be of any particular mindset, as long as they do not work contrary to the values espoused in Indymedia's mission statement."

UK IMC makes its declared bias even more explicit in its mission statement [[2]]: "Inherent in the mainstream corporate media is a strong bias towards Capitalism's power structures, and it is an important tool in propagating these structures around the globe. While the mainstream media conceal their manifold biases and alignments, we clearly state our position. Indymedia UK does not attempt to take an objective and impartial standpoint: Indymedia UK clearly states its subjectivity."

I've never heard anyone involved with Indymedia in any country making "claims to the contrary", but I'd be interested to hear about these claims, if you can provide evidence. --Clicketyclack

Representation

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)

Protection

No activity for about 2 weeks. I'm removing the NPOV tag. Feel free to reinstate if there's still dispute. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 04:47, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

where indymedias are

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)

Removed editorial sections

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)

is this not true?

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)

hope this makes sense

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)

glad I'm not going crazy

I think it should be in there but I'm not sure how to post it other than how I have been trying.

signed CD

I concur with Bletch's comment regarding "Indymedia advocacy pieces, and were not encyclopediac in nature" but the piece still has distinct stamp of being written with a wild enthusiasm for imc as though it was more evolved than really it is. This very process we are engaged in here is far beyond what is available to most imc contributors. I hope I didn't annoy anyone with the way I set up my changes...bite size as it were. wikidgood

Reputation section

Odd -- do other topics have "Reputation" sections. Rather subjective. Any poll data? Seems like kind of an ad for IMC.

The way it is set up it limits the scope of criticism to a much narrower range than you will find if you google IMC Censorship or IMC antisemitism or such...

"While Indymedia has a good reputation amongst its target audience, "

That is not NPOV

this reputation is not universal.

An NPOV and then an admission that it is POV.

Critics often claim that since

Seizure of servers by FBI section

This link [3] found under seizure subheading on the article is broken. Was this machine also raided or why did the link disappear?

That is not the main criticism by any stretch. That is a straw man.

anyone can publish with little to no editorial process, opinions -- sometimes characterised by 'mainstream media' and its supporters as conspiracy theories --

Falsely setting up the whole section. The conspiracy theorists -- who btw control certain imc servers themselves -- are not the sole or even the major case...many posts are simply different than the line of the controlling admins

often are published as fact, along with inaccurate (sometimes wildly so) articles and content that can offend (e.g., anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim, racist, etc.).

,,

I'm taking off for now but overall looks like your recent edits steve are pretty well intended and i concur with the intent...some refining i think still in order later

Page is so long, we can do with out rambling so I cut this:

Most substantive decisions in Indymedia are made at the community level, however constant collaboration and mutual aid is required at the network, or "global" level -- especially in the maintenance of the technical resources (e.g., servers, software, technical knowledge, etc.). Matters of finance, legal and other issues are also processed at the network level, to the extent that they affect the network.

It doesn't really say much does it? Just lists topic areas and assigns them to locl or network level. But locals are in network and this stuff just is not true...for examply indybay is soliciting editorial help on the web not restricting its edit function to local level...and many people are involved with running sites in cities they no longer reside in...

I hate to delete sentences whole hog but i think this one is warranted...i will search the originator and paste it up for them if possible. but it is here anyway

Wikidgood

A curious thing...

Haven't you noticed that in places like Venezuela, Iran, China and Cuba, there are no IMCs??? Really curious, since these places don't have an intrusive corporate media.Caleiva 03:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, there are sections about venezuela in english and spanish (pr.indymedia.org for spanish) The motive is public, go to docs.indymedia.org and search for venezuela, there is significant concern that it may be impossible to form a plural IMC in Venezuela, this aborted efforts by the people interested on participating.

Cuba has a severly restricted access to the internet and they do not intend to relax it, see cubadebate.cu (in spanish) to understand this

China has severe censorship and political repression too (very widespread, see google news censorship for example), making an indymedia site there seems far away

i do not know the situation in Iran even superficially.

The only one that suprises me is Venezuela. The other three, creating an indymedia would be risking your life. --Tothebarricades 05:34, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

There is no IMC in Venezuela yet, it's true. But there is certainly an intrusive corporate media there, and this is made evident by their reports on actions by rightwing and leftwing activists. Here's a quick summary to get you started: [[4]]

On a related note, an Indymedia has just started in Belarus by some very brave activists: [[5]] [[6]].

Indymedia isn't just about gaining control of our news from corporate dominance, but also from state dominance. This problem isn't limited to supposedly "communist" states like Cuba and Belarus, but also exists in supposedly "democratic" states in the West. The state control may often be subtler in the West, but it's a problem nevertheless. --Clicketyclack 29 Dec, 2005

There is now a Venezuela IMC http://venezuela.indymedia.org/es/index.shtml. There was a long debate about whether it was appropiate for participation from Chavista groups would be appropite in an "Independent" media project. Vnz IMC does have participation from Pro-Chavez social movements. What is the implication of this? yes, authoritarian regimes do not allow dissident organizations, indymedia is not an exception. 98.198.41.235 17:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a quasi-IMC in Hongkong (hongkong in-media), which of course is blocked from 'mainland china'. btw, non-western languages have big problems adapting the software and climbing over the all-english bureaucracy hurdles.- that's why taiwan and hongkong went with other systems. south korea has so many activist websites, they hardly need another 'local' one, but there are some movements to start one after all to connect korean activism to english language world. japan - bilingual people and crack techies managed.

NPOV

This must be about the most biased page that exists on Wikipedia. Oh well, not my problem. I guess some people find it easier to expend huge amounts of effort protesting buzzwords like globalisation and corporations than they would to do 1 semester's economics and realise how puerile and ignorant their protests are.

I agree with the point that it's biased, and I have decided a POV box needs to be put on the page, and the article probably needs to be rewritten looking at all the subjective comments used. It is tacky and not worthy of being in Wiki in its current form. I have took out a few examples of POV infringements for everyone in my justification below, but I'll make clear that this is only a small number of them:

Look at this sentence, it's more of a rant on so called "corporate media", irrelevant to the topic, in a way that is trying to justify Indymedia/advertise its value

"other corporate models are assumed to be telling the truth. However, according to analysis by Noam Chomsky, Ben Badakian and many others, corporate media models as they become ever more concentrated operate more as forms of mass manipulation, "opinion guidance", and news omission and less as a form of "objectivity" or unbiased professionalism which allows a form of education for democratic input."

Now how about this sentence:

"In addition, corporate journalists themselves are increasingly worried and depressed about directions their model of journalism is taking them, as its coverage becomes thinner, less analytical and subservient to capitalist/corporatist ideology."

Not necessarily true, I haven't heard any claims from "corporate journalists", and it also insinuates that all journalists are worried, which is deliberately misleading.

No, it's not misleading at all. Here are some corporate journalists complaining:

"was seen as a means to balance out the lack of objectivity, lack of professionalism, and lack of democratic input that the corporate media themselves had shown on topics both economic and political to do with the externalities of corporate-led globalization."

Opinion, needs to be made clear it's why Indymedia was set up, without selling it as a fact that "Corporate media" "lack professionalism".

"in attempts to remove independent news sources that promote multiple perspectives and omitted facts on many current events."

But it was said earlier in the article that Indymedia suppress and censor some perspectives, and from whom I've talked to, some of the Indy newswires only allow opinions that are essentially the same as their own: this makes this statement contradictory, and also subjective in the sense it doesn't adequately acknowledge any reasons for the "repression". Even with the section later on, it should be made clear that this "repression" was part of a criminal investigation.

There are numerous other POV infringements, and this article more than warrants the POV box I'm putting in. This article in my opinion, really needs to be rewritten to the wiki standards of neutrality, and probably cut down in size as well, it's ridiculously too big. Put it in this perspective, it's almost as big as the article on Microsoft, if not bigger. Blightsoot

I have done some NPOVing (mostly by cutting massive paragraphs of blather, and removing some "spin" sections); there is a lot more work that needs to be done and I encourage others to join in and help. Sdedeo 11:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll aim to assist with this in the coming days. :D

Also why is there a Wikipedia:Guide_for_Indymedia_authors? It seems to be just advocating copy and paste jobs from Indymedia (which can be a very biased source...just looking at this article tells you that).

I may yet list that for Articles for Deletion but that could probably wait for the timed being.

Blightsoot 12:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Blightsoot -- you may have gone too far in your edits. In particular, you put in a bit of editorializing about the Apple computer / political blog stuff (you should cite a reference if an outside source has made this comparison); note that Bristol is in the UK and not subject to US law ;)

Also, I think the wikipedia/indymedia comparison is fine; it could do with sources, but it's not NPOV and "comparative" sections are common in articles. Also, here are some paras you removed which seem fine and mostly NPOV to me:

The Indymedia community's strive for non-hierarchical organization has caused numerous conflicts and tensions, which are perhaps more apparent to observers given the transparent nature of the IMC. Examples of tension in the IMC's evolution abound and can be found by browsing the public archives of the organization's mailing lists: lists.indymedia.org, or by using Google to search these archives for specific items.

==Role vis-à-vis international media networks== Indymedia is sometimes considered by its supporters to be a competitor to the large international media networks, such as CNN, News Corporation, ABC-USA or the BBC. However, it would be more accurate to say that Indymedia is an example of an open publishing news network/community. Because of its open organizing structure and its internal rules (e.g., copyleft) that no Indymedia center can become a commercial or for-profit organization, it would be impossible for an entity to buy it in a take-over bid.

Good luck, Sdedeo 17:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Of NPOV and Splitting

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)

Re: the legal questions of political blogs etc. The real problem is not that the comparison was wrong because of juristictions, but that it was original research (i.e., speculation on the legal correctness of the seizure.) Really when we cover the seizures we should refrain from making our own judgements, and stick to describing/presenting the reasoning of primary/secondary sources.

30kb I think is fine, but everyone has their own personal limit. If you want to split off articles, go ahead; I think this can often be a good thing, but can occasionally be very troublesome. In particular, it means that battles have to be fought twice -- how the short version goes, and how the long version goes. That is exhausting. If you do decide to split, I would suggest doing the uncontentious stuff (e.g., the comparison), and if you split the contentious stuff (e.g., the seizures) keep the shortest and most excruciatingly NPOV sentences for the "short" (i.e. main article) reference only. E.g., "Indymedia servers have occasionally been seized by police in the United States and United Kingdom. The appropriateness of such seizures has been the subject of controversy. See the main article blah." Good luck. Sdedeo 23:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

comparison to wikipedia

hi, i'm an IMCista from austria. this statement is not at all correct: "At Indymedia, however, bans may be put into effect by any user with an administrator password; such bans may be discussed with other administrators, but it is also possible that the only person aware of the ban would be the person who put the ban on."

allthough we know that the software allows banning of IPs, nobody in our collective would think of using this function. AFAIK most of the european IMCs don't even offer the possibility to register, so there is nobody to ban. furthermore all steps taken by the editorial collective are made (or should at least be made ;-)) public on a daily base via imc-austria@lists.indymedia.org.

it's really impossible to make general statements about the decentral and autonomous indymedia network, so please don't do it. just wanted to tell ya but my english is not the best, maybe somebody else will find a better describtion for this section.

neutrality

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)

neutrality, cont'd

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)

how we doin?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(resetting indent) Viriditas reverted a removal of category tags. I reverted an erroneous assertion about the first Indymedia in Seattle, with a supporting citation from First Monday, a peer-reviewed journal from the University of Illinois at Chicago Library (http://www.firstmonday.org/). You then claimed that First Monday is "an Indymedia website", but this is demonstrably false. You then tried to repost your edits, again without providing evidence for your claims about Indymedia. If anything's incorrect in the article, then please post some evidence here to prove the error. Thanks. Clicketyclack 02:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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"

Morton devonshire 16:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

Seriously? You don't see it? Not trying to be facetious here. Morton devonshire 21:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

I don't see it either. MortonsSockpuppet 22:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Damn you sockpuppet. Get your act together and remember who you are. Morton devonshire 22:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

Recent acceptance of terrorism on Indymedia.org.uk

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)

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)

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)

Clean up

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

"the" IMC ?

there has been some debate in recent academic/activist IMC work about terms. Based on my understanding of it I would suggest using:

indymedia (lower case) = to refer to the concept, philosophy and movement. use sparingly, since each IMC is different, the only thing that is (has to be) accepted by all IMCs are the principles of unity and a few other things.

NIMC (network of independent media centers) = the whole network (for which there are formal membership requirements) IMC to refer to an individual node/center

IMCs to refer to several centers (not the whole network), e.g. "IMCs in Asia"

"the IMC" - just don't use it. definite article implies there is only a single one, which makes little sense. c there are 138 (my count of Sept 2005), the network itself is polycentric, internally contested and sub-culturally diverse. Bine Maya (writing my disseration on these kinds of things, currently publishing an article on Indymedia in a book).

Indymedia journalist killed in Oaxaco

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 Force^{Got something to say?} 18:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Structure: editorial policies against "hierarchy"

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)

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)

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)

Hey, I'm not familiar with the editorial policies of all IMCs, only the one for which I'm a moderator. I didn't even make the non-hierarchical claim myself. As for the Zapatistas, it is open to debate how hierarchical they are in practice. However, they claim to be striving for a non-hierarchical society.Ad Nauseam 21:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

Edits by User:James Force

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)

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)