Basically all editing (which is _very_ rare) and hiding (wich happens more often) is discussed / notified to the imc-uk-features list:

 http://lists.indymedia.org/imc-uk-features

This list has open archives so you don't need to be on it to see what is going on.

Some local things are discussed on the local collective lists, there is a list of these here:

 http://lists.indymedia.org/

So there are no secrets, it's all open, and it's odd that such an open organisation gets so much stick for 'censorship' from lefties when none of the lefty groups in the UK have open publishing web sites...!

Can I publish my article on the SLP or SWL or AWL web site myself? I don't think so!

Do lefty groups edit material that is submitted for their rags? For sure!

Spend some time seeing how Indymedia works and if you still have concerns email them to imc-uk-features.

There is often not a final decision on articles and those that maintain the site are up for discussing editorial decisions with regard to articles being linked from newswires, rather than being 'hidden' and only viewable via:
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/viewallposts.html
Decision can be reversed as a new consenous is built around grey areas of the editorial polcy and other considerations taken on board. But day to day decision have to be taken on the wire to move site forward and keep it usefull resource to cause it began for.
Constructing an arguement around idea that to 'hide' article like is censorship, will not make much progress with those that have build and maintain the indymedia site(s).

On point of lack of others using easy access web interaces that viewers can switch to contributors, I have found that some in the SSP do wish to set up a wiki to develop policy maybe starting with heath. But they have little support from the leadership, and no party funding has been given to help fund web development.

I think it would be good to see more open web tools used by various groups.

How indymedia works
19.08.2004 12:27

You said: "Basically all editing (which is _very_ rare) and hiding (wich happens more often) is discussed / notified to the imc-uk-features list:"

I've mentioned quite a few, the Flouridation posting in early 2004, posted onto Liverpool Indymedia, it disappeared within days, not just off the right column, but off the newswire as well. I was fortunate enough to have seen it and got a copy and then visited their website.

In regard to my postings being removed. Everytime I mention the SLP, you remove my postings, in fact I don't even need to mention the SLP and you (Indymedia-Liverpool) remove my postings. I re-posted my 'Stock Transfer of remaining 21,500 council houses' twice as I always have to press twice, because it just comes back with the same page with my text in and I have to publish again.

The one that remained for a few days didn't have my email, www or name on it and yet it was still removed I didn't see any good reason for doing that, as somehow my name wasn't on it, or my email or www and the line was removed. That showed me clearly the hypocracy, no author name, no email address, no WWW, no reference to the reference of the SLP at all, so you have a prime example of no valid excuse for removal.

The original posting which upset the middle class anarchists running Indymedia because of one single sentence which which said the SLP having been the only party to actively oppose stock transfer here in Liverpool (which is a fact). Even Darren from PnP was somewhat amazed when I told him we'd been out campaigning against it in 2001/2002, which wasn't reported anywhere in Liverpool. However that posting then attracted news, ie that Augbirth council housing is facing Stock Transfer in November, news I didn't know about!!!

When I re-posted I put in a line and it wasn't there additionally all my other details weren't there either. OK no big deal because I've been censored from BBC, Liverpool Echo over the years on the primary issue of housing and I mean extreme censorship and the most pathetic excuses given to the extreme of being actually LIED TO and me proving it to them! So I figured that 'INDY' Independent? Media might have been different, I realise it's no different it just has different excuses, a different set of faces, a different hierarchy and different political agenda for blocking news items.

To those people who just might pick up useful information off Indymedia, you 'Indymedia' remove a posting with no warning, at least you could post an OFFICIAL message giving notice of action saying "INDYMEDIA's editors" are going to remove this entire article and all related articles within 24hours of this posting to this article.

Ordinary members of the public out there just see a posting removed, they don't know that some of the time it'll be on the 'Newswire' depending on who has the control that day to shift the article around or delete it even. Whatever you 'Indymedia' people might think of the SLP, I have to tell you we don't get fair or balanced publicity or media coverage even during an election, so we're used to national, regional and local media exclusion. However I note how the BNP get free name checks and actual out and out promotion on all the main media, the SLP don't even get negative coverage in the main national or local media. I note how the BNP were mentioned numerous times during the recent elections here in Liverpool.

YOU SAID: "So there are no secrets, it's all open, and it's odd that such an open organisation gets so much stick for 'censorship' from lefties when none of the lefty groups in the UK have open publishing web sites...!"

In actual fact we've got non-SLP members of the Liverpool messageboard who post what they like. In regard to criticism from 'lefties' I thought Anarchists considered themselves as 'lefties'? well it appears they're not then. You also said "it's all open" well then how comes Mike Lane and Kai Andersen are the only people who put up our full 'REAL' names and email addresses everytime because we stand by our comments and can thus be emailed by those who have a disagreement, I've not received any such email complaints other than a couple from Indymedia people who I don't even know who they are, where they are based or what their position within Indymedia is.

YOU SAID: "Can I publish my article on the SLP or SWL or AWL web site myself? I don't think so!"

Your line of argument doesn't actually stand up, none of those organisations claim to be 'INDEPENDENT MEDIA'. You'll find you can actually send letter to the Weekly Worker and they'll publish it, not that I'm a fan of WW, just for the sake of detail I mentioned them (not that I'm actually promoting WW).

Carl recently had a posting removed from the right column, his current article remains, but I wonder 'for how long?'. I saw no valid reason for removal of his first article.

YOU SAID: "Do lefty groups edit material that is submitted for their rags? For sure!"

But again they're not claiming to be 'INDEPENDENT MEDIA' or an 'ALTERNATIVE NEWS RESOURCE'. There are dozens and dozens of news items that simply don't get in the mainstream national or local media, here in Liverpool there are loads of issues, I see no mention of the new 'political party' being discussed here on Merseyside. It seems that the lefties who are mostly excluded from mainstream media have quite a lot of news to publish, the ordinary members of the public out-there are rarely going to publish stuff, I suggested to RICE LANE CITY FARM, facing possible closure due to threatened council budget cuts post something onto Indymedia with some digital photos and background they haven't.

You wrote: "Spend some time seeing how Indymedia works and if you still have concerns email them to imc-uk-features."

Sounds like press complains commission, if you have a concern about press coverage then send a letter and waste our time debating with people who have the power to censor.

Incidently I've had journalistic training and put together a couple of community news-sheets distributed across North Liverpool in the mid 1990's, never censored or blocked anything I happened to disagree with, that included me publishing a quote from a houseowner who was 'pro-housing privatisation' ie giving space to opposition I'd had stand up arguments with and consequently years later had slanderous comments made against me on BBC Radio Merseyside. I also co-ordinated a computer orientated Internet magazine in 1996.

Kai, there's no censorship going on here.

Your sentence "SENTENCE REMOVED DUE TO A REFERENCE TO A POLITICAL PARTY WHICH WAS PART OF THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION TO THIS ARTICLE" didn't appear in the article, and doesn't appear in your last comment either, because in both you enclosed it in angle brackets "<".

I'll show you what I mean by posting here a screenshot of the article as seen from the admin system: your sentence wasn't censored, it's still there. It just doesn't show up on the web page:
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/08/296425.html

If our web publishing system "Mir" sees something enclosed in angle brackets, it assumes it's an HTML tag. Use parentheses instead "(".

If you want someone to edit your article and change the angle brackets to parentheses, then mail the list and ask.

You then reposted that article like you said, but this time you put in all your web addresses etc. I hid it as a duplicate, after a quick look at the title and contents.
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/08/296426.html
No big deal. IMC admins hide duplicates every day from people who hit the submit button 6 times by mistake. You're not being singled out, and there's no conspiracy going on here against you or your party.

Both copies of the article are now visible on the Liverpool page.