Talk:Indymedia

1/20/05 Just found this this definition, after another day of working on Indymedia. Indymedia is now over 5 years old. I'm glad there's first hand knowledge present, but you are writing for a "dictionary" audience, not just your friends. Too many trees and not enough forest. What is the significance, impact, or not, on media overall? What effect has Indymedia and open publishing had in relation to open software, the internet in general, in how people consume news, or produce news, leading to blogging, etc., etc. Please take a gigantic step back and add the big picture.

Rabble wrote a pretty good history, but I can't find it.

An Imcista for 4 years

---

Whoops! Thanks for the redirect. Now someone (me or other) will have to do a merge.... :( ouch. I hope there's something useful in my "new" version that can be extracted.

---

"In September 2002, a front organisation for the CIA, called the Ford Foundation?, proposed funding for an Indymedia regional meeting. This was refused because many volunteers in Indymedia were uncomfortable with accepting money from the CIA, which has been responsible for carrying out and/or funding many human rights violations? in Latin America during the second half of the 20th century, as well as training islamic fundamentalists? in Pakistan and Afghanistan in terrorist techniques."

Can we have some confirmation of this? Since when was the Ford Foundation a CIA front? Greg Godwin

---

Since the 1950's.

http://www.rebelion.org/petras/english/ford010102.htm

The Ford Foundation and the CIA: A documented case of philanthropic collaboration with the Secret Police

Lets stick to known facts, it is claimed that the Ford Foundation is a front for the CIA, it is not verified. (I personally believe it, but NPOV must rule for this encyclopedia) - Greg Godwin 15:40 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)

I can't wholly agree... what's a "known fact"? The article above might be enough to make it a "known fact" that the Ford Foundation is a CIA front, depending on who you ask. This debate should be properly addressed on the Ford Foundation page, not here, but if there's no FF reply to the charges above that can be quoted, then I'd have to say it's a "known fact" that the FF is a front group. Graft 15:44 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)

It could be claimed the article is biased, just because it takes the form of an academic report doesn't mean it is without bias. Lets just be sure to note that the CIA -> Ford Foundation link is a claim - Greg Godwin 15:48 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)

Indeed. Putting the word "documented" in the title doesn't make it so. He quotes "Saunders", but doesn't give a bibliography. Essays that use one, uncited, source are not worth very much, I'm afraid. Which isn't to say I don't believe it, but one has to do better than that. And the FF say: Since its inception it has been an independent, nonprofit, nongovernmental organization, which sounds like a denial to me -- User:GWO

I think we have met in a middle ground... if you look at the FF entry, it says "the stated mission", and "critics claim" is fair enough. As I said, I believe the claim, but it just cant be verified independently. Greg Godwin 15:53 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)

I don't think anything is without bias, try as we might to make it otherwise. I agree we should say this is a claim, but I think we all should be careful about what we are eager to contextualize and what we accept as a matter of course. We all leap out of our skins at suggestions that the FF is a CIA front group, but we'd be much less likely to do so for the equally questionable (but far more acceptable) contention that America fought to overthrow fascism in World War II. Graft

I agree Graft, and I'd have a problem with that generalisation too! But we can only deal with article at a time, but i'd happily work on fixing other non-NPOV inconsistencies Greg Godwin

Well if that wasn't what they were doing, we Europeans consider it a pretty fortuitous by-product -- User:GWO

Well said! Sebastian (another European)

Notes from my edits:

I am aware that Semitic also refers to Arabs, but anti-Semitic means anti-Jew (unless you're being pedantic). Look it up if you don't belive me. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=anti-semitic Indymedia vs Wikipedia is a tangential to the rest of this article. I've deleted the section, but worked non-redundant parts related to indymedia into other sections. I've made some NPOV edits. I've edited some overly vebose passages to use more concise, easily understood terms. I eliminated unnecessary jargon where I noticed it. One of the recent edits was poorly organized, I've tried to correct this by working out-of-place bits into more appropriate sections. Vanu 18:41 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

Here's an idea: why not just stick to describing what the IMC is and to describing specific events that are related to it, and cut out all the (IMO, irrelevant) stuff that treats the IMC as an issue rather than an organization. I want to know what the IMC is when looking up an article on it, not whether people like it or not or what their opinions are of it. For those kinds of arguments, how 'bout starting up a new article like objectivity in journalism or the internet as news medium?

---

Indymedia vs Wikipedia is a tangential to the rest of this article.

I don't see why it's tangential - Indymedia and Wikipedia have a huge amount in common, so IMHO it's important to show how they are similar and how they are different.

Personally, I'd be happy to remove the reputation section - I agree with treating IMC as an organization rather than as an issue. But someone seems to feel that it's necessary to delegitimize IMC, even mentioning an incorrect perception (that IMC's have no editorial policies) without mentioning that the perception is wrong... But I'll leave others to decide on whether or not to remove the reputation bit.

---

Is Wikipedia about helping people to understand or not? IMHO, it is about helping people to understand, and subtitles help people understand.

I fail to understand why the "indymedia vs wikipedia" title was removed, so i'm reverting. Please let's try to discuss this here on the talk page.

We try to avoid this kind of meta-discussion. Please see Wikipedia:Avoid self-references for details. If you wish to discuss the differences between Indymedia and Wikipedia, we welcome you to do so, but this should not be done in the article namespace, but in the Wikipedia: namespace -- compare Wikipedia:Guide for Everything2 noders and Wikipedia:Guide for h2g2 researchers. You might want to create Wikipedia:Guide for Indymedia authors. --Eloquence 12:53 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

OK, in Wikipedia:Avoid self-references it's written:

If, however, you read about online communities,
the article may well discuss Wikipedia as an example
-- in neutral tone, without specifically implying that
the article in question is being read on, or part of Wikipedia.

So what I understand is to avoid making links -sqbracket-sqbracket-Wikipedia-sqbracket-sqbracket .

I also agree with the suggestion Wikipedia:Guide for Indymedia authors, but I still think it's relevant to mention the similarity within the article. So I'll have another go and let's see if we can consense on this... Please wait a few minutes...

The problem is that there is no particular reason to pick Wikipedia as a counter-example, and it cannot be assumed that the reader knows what Wikipedia is. If you want to compare Indymedia to other communities, you should start a section "Indymedia and other communities" and then have "Indymedia vs. Wikipedia" as a subsection of that section, and briefly explain what Wikipedia is in that subsection. It's OK to link to the Wikipedia article, just don't assume that the reader knows what Wikipedia is because he reads this article in Wikipedia, which he may very well not do. --Eloquence 13:39 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

OK, i did the first draft of Wikipedia:Guide for Indymedia authors and i'm starting to understand what is meant by forking. In any case, the changes are fine by me.

IMHO, wikipedia is probably the most similar online community to compare with, in terms of having the goal of information collection/synthesis for ordinary people and in trying to be international and multilingual. But other suggestions are welcome :).

A newbie question about GFDL in relation to Wikipedia: Imagine that someone, X, wants to distribute some section of the Wikipedia in printed form, e.g. all the articles on media and online communities, then is the following a correct interpretation of the GFDL Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License:

• X can only charge for the cost of production + distribution, not for extra profit
• it's OK to pick out just some small subset of the whole Wikipedia, as a modified version
• the printed version must include a specific copyright and license notice.
• If no transparent copy, i.e. machine-readable in a free format, is included with the printed copy, then it's called opaque
• If the opaque copy is distributed in more than 100 copies, it's sufficient to include a link to a web site such as the wikipedia site which is very likely to remain accessible 12 months in the future. Or are there additional reasonably prudent steps which X needs to take?

I'm not asking for a legal opinion, I'm just thinking aloud... But it seems to me that if a major distribution journal (e.g. a weekly) publishes a wikipedia article, and all it does to ensure redistribution is to publish a link to the wikipedia site of the same language, then it implicitly accepts responsability for maintenance of that wikipedia site for at least 12 months. :))) This might be a way to force funding of local language wikipedia sites from mainstream publications... :)))

Not to rain on your party or anything, but a major weekly would not publish a wikipedia article, given the current attitudes in the traditional publishing world. Any implicit requirement to maintain wikipedia would probably put a significant financial strain on whoever decides to distribute >100 "opaque" copies. Vanu 05:54 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hi Vanu. I believe that you are mistaken in your summary of the GFDL. Specifically:

• There is no restriction on making a profit charging for copies. Where do you get that from?
• Local publications have no need to fund a wikipedia mirror.
• The GFDL says that if you distribute more than 100 copies without distributing the electronic source, then you have to take reasonable steps to ensure that the host web site is viable for at least 12 months.
• We are absolutely *not* looking to "force funding" of anything from downstream content reproducers. We are producing open content so that it may be used, not so that we can trick people into helping us.

If you have more questions/comments, I suggest you take them to Wikipedia talk:Copyrights, where more people will see them. Cool to have you here, and I'm going to check out your guide for indymedia writers (I am one) soon. Peace, DanKeshet 15:36, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to summarize the GFDL, I was trying to show that, if the person who I responded to was correct, then the outcome he described wouldn't be the result. Since he was incorrect, everything I said was moot. Vanu 06:46, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Here is summary about an Indymedia debate, the present, issues, the future, the 'brand' Indymedia, and more http://www.indymedia.nl/nl/2003/09/14038.shtml translated from a Dutch summary which is also linked from there. - NN

---

Vanu:

I don't understand why you think that the term anybody with internet access is obfuscatory but the term anybody is not obfuscatory.

Maybe misleading is better to describe the use of anybody without a reminder that poorer people in rich countries and most people in poorer countries have very poor internet access. Independently of whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, it's a reasonably NPOV fact, IMHO.

Wikipedia is biased against one sector of the world population. Indymedia tries to be biased in favour (in terms of participation) of the same sector. Both are honest and up-front about this and neither deny it. Denying this complementarity isn't NPOV, IMHO.

I also don't understand why you think the term leftist is non-ambiguous but that terms like overtly biased in favour of human rights, environmental rights is obfuscatory.

Please just look at some local Indymedia sites or at some of the organising documents and you'll see that virtually nobody defines leftism as a requirement for participation. Maybe not everybody would agree with the general categories human rights and environmentalism to describe the biases of Indymedia, but they are at least as clear as leftist.

Leftism is obfuscatory because it's confused with the communist regimes of the USSR and PRC.

---

De-spinning the article better describes what I meant to say than "reverting to non-obfuscatory terms". When I was new to wikipedia, I spun a couple of articles in a similar way, and those edits were always reverted, so I do the same now when I see similar behavior.

"Leftist" or "left-wing" are the best terms to describe indymedia and it's biases because: 1) they're compact, 2) they're about as de-spun as you can get, 3) they're readily understood.

I agree that "leftism" is not a requirement for participation, but left-wing or leftist are terms which broadly define the sites. They primarily champion what are generally considered to be left-wing causes, and what little that isn't left-wing appears in comments or the unedited news wires, and is clearly in the minority. Vanu 06:08, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Rather than using complicated words like "de-spun", surely what we want is articles which are clear and have minimum ambiguity.

There is as little point in using the term "leftism" to describe indymedia as it is to describe wikipedia. As i said above: terms like "leftist" are highly ambiguous, and in the ex-communist countries (i live in one), the issues of economics are especially confused with dictatorial politics and submission to a colonial power - which is completely different to indymedia in practice. Anyway, i'll have a look at the history and maybe we'll be able to consense on something... Boud 19:57, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 [1] 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)

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.

"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