Re: Re: RHIZOME_RARE: soliciting thoughts on guidelines for rhizomeraw

Hi Sal,

I appreciate your intentions and agree with almost all of what you said. But
excuse my reluctance to totally agree for there are users on the raw list
who frequent it quite regularly using it as a platform, like myself for
displaying work - but when you get attacked personally by people
constantly, you get a bit bored with it. So I am feeling less anxious about
the loss of certain abusers…

marc

>
>
> I very much thing that raw should mean raw. Personally, I'm feeling
> increasingly troubled about the filtration factor of having introduced the
> fee. I'm realizing that open access was central to what I felt Rhizome,
and
> especially raw were about. As I'm sure most of us are aware, the most
> interesting discussions about rhizome are now going on on other lists. I
> think there are plenty of filtration options with rare and digest and that
> the very rawness of raw is something particular to value. And I do value
> it.
>
> Sal
>
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>

Comments

, ruth catlow

Hello Rachel,

Why are we discussing filtering now?
This issue came up and was well discussed a couple of months ago when it was
relevant.
By devising more long term policies than are absolutely necessary Rhizome risks
taking another step towards traditional institutional inflexibility. I propose
that rather than devising a policy in the abstract we decide on these issues
collectively as and when they arise (perhaps by secret ballot when consensus is
impossible to gauge).
I dunno it all feels a bit weird.

all the best

Ruth Catlow

http://www.furtherfiled.org

, Rachel Greene

hey ruth –

thanks for your thoughts.

taking a step back, the impetus behind my question is to gage what seems
relevant to raw subscribers now, following the membership change. basically,
we're interested in maintaining and fostering meaningful, focused content
and discussions, and want to input on how to go about doing so…

guidelines for rhizome raw was suggested by more than a few people as a way
to improve matters (other ways to support discursive quality are editorially
based – but I will deal with that in a separate post).

also, guidelines wouldn't mean we would bounce people, or filter content.
we're not looking for a restrictive atmosphere, but just some terms for
participation I can email to people if their posts become way way off-topic
or abusive.

taking the temperature on the topic – best, rachel

> Hello Rachel,
>
> Why are we discussing filtering now?
> This issue came up and was well discussed a couple of months ago when it was
> relevant.
> By devising more long term policies than are absolutely necessary Rhizome
> risks
> taking another step towards traditional institutional inflexibility. I propose
> that rather than devising a policy in the abstract we decide on these issues
> collectively as and when they arise (perhaps by secret ballot when consensus
> is
> impossible to gauge).
> I dunno it all feels a bit weird.
>
> all the best
>
> Ruth Catlow
>
> http://www.furtherfiled.org
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php