Open Journal Montreal

Andrea Langlois, The Praxis of Open Publishing

This paper examines the theory, practice, and policy behind open publishing, beginning with the historical and political context of its development. Open publishing is explored as a philosophy put into practice within Indymedia that allows activists to participate in a discursive realm outside of hegemonic institutions. Yet because inequality and domination have manifested within this space, Indymedia collectives have had to establish editorial policies that require them to negotiate their role as mediators and to answer difficult questions about how values of openness, reciprocity, and horizontal decision-making can be enacted within the construction and management of mediated spaces. Despite the difficulties in dealing with these challenges, the development of editorial policies has no doubt strengthened the Indymedia network in pushing the limits of the Temporary Autonomous Zone, in stimulating the development of new open publishing tools within the open source software, and in creating an opportunity for collectives to better define their purpose and their vision of Indymedia.

Open publishing is a concept, a philosophy, and, in some ways, an ideal that media creators and activists have sought to put into practice. Within discussions about the Internet and its potentials for increasing democracy and equality, open publishing is a concept that is often defined with value-laden language, such as
‘participation,’ ‘free speech,’ and ‘openness.’ Similar to debates around ‘access’ to technology, those around open publishing focus on answering questions as to how these values can be enacted within the construction and management of mediated spaces. This paper will thus begin with a discussion of the principles and values behind open publishing as well as the historical and political context from which it arose. Although there are many contexts and histories behind aspects of open publishing, this paper will speak primarily of its creation and development within the Indymedia network (www.indymedia.org). Whereas the first section of this paper will examine the principles behind open publishing as well as the political motivations and consequences attached to them, the second part will consist of a type of policy analysis of the various policies that have been developed in order to support open publishing. Within the Indymedia network, there have been many debates on what types of policies and practices can help in the realization of a mediated space that reflects the values behind open publishing and the pro-justice (or anti-capitalism) movement. In order to examine open publishing in relation to policy, it will be necessary to explore the role that technology plays, as well as the roles of the various stakeholders, such as Indymedia collectives, audience/collaborators, and the global Indymedia network.

The Source of Open Publishing

Open publishing is the same as free software. They’re both ®evolutionary responses to the privatization of information by multinational monopolies. For software it’s Microsoft. For publishing it’s CNN. For both software and publishing it’s AOL Time Warner. (Arnison 2001: 329)

The concept of open publishing has its roots in the tech world of open source software. Broadly, “open source software” is software where the source code, which is the language that programmers write when creating software, is freely available for consultation, alteration, and distribution. “Freely” here means that it is available at no cost and that it is easily accessible through the Internet. Proprietary software, such as that which Microsoft distributes, is not open source, meaning that it is owned and copyrighted by Microsoft and is not available for those wanting to see how it works or to improve or change it.⁽¹⁾ Beyond this notion of openness with regards to the functioning of the software are the other notions behind open source that are more often linked to its developers and users. Within the open source movement or community, which is how some people refer to it, there is also an emphasis on collaboration. Open source software is built, tested, and updated through the collaboration of many programmers and users, and via the Internet and its decentralized structure. This collaboration is influenced by the value of reciprocity in that if someone uses the source code to create something new, or if they improve on it in some way, they are expected to funnel their work back into the community. This process is sometimes referred to as a “gift economy,” in that there is a cycle of giving and taking that is based on passion for the project, not profit. The creation and growth of the Internet has also been linked to the concept of the gift economy in that many of the Internet’s engineers were not remunerated financially for their work, but instead participated in an economy where many people voluntarily gave time and resources to the project.

This process of creation and management, along with those who participate in it, is often referred to as a social movement because those who are involved in it are also engaged in an ideological struggle (whether or not they see themselves in this way). The early open source movement arose in the 1990s as the information imbedded in technologies that was once open and accessible, or “common” as Dorothy Kidd (2003) refers to it, started being enclosed within the capitalist principle of intellectual property. Those who had worked for years within a system of sharing and collaboration saw this move as one that threatened this open system of innovation and the belief that “technology is a means to liberate information” (Kidd 2003: 57). The ideological struggle is between the open source belief that information is free and the corporate view that information is property. As others have documented, commodification and digitization of information are threatening “the right to communicate openly and democratically” (Mosco 2003: 288). The open source movement, among others, has therefore become one which is engaged in the struggle to maintain the Internet as a decentralized commons in the face of corporate enclosure.

Open Source Meets the Global Justice Movement

It is a common belief among activists that the corporate-run mass media present obstacles to social justice
movements. Although some groups have found ways to get their messages through to the mainstream media, whether through the staging of media spectacles or the funneling of resources into media relations, many groups experience media coverage that shows their actions through a distorted lens. As documented in Dorothy Kidd’s article “Media Meet the WTO Protests,” a group of activists decided that for the 1999 protests against the WTO, they would flip this dynamic. “Don’t hate the media, be the media” is one of the major slogans behind Indymedia, otherwise known as the IMC—the Independent Media Center. Although what is usually thought of now as Indymedia is the www.indymedia.org network of websites, IMC started as a physical center for alternative and independent media-makers to gather during the protests in Seattle, out of which flowed a daily print bulletin, radio broadcasts, and video.⁽²⁾

The IMC website initially started as a newswire for protesters and independent journalists, accessible through the computers at the centre. The network of websites that it has become can trace its beginning to a chance encounter between an Australian media activist and one of the Seattle IMC organizers a month prior to the Seattle anti-World Trade Organization demonstrations. The activist from Australia convinced the web designers to adopt open source software designed by Community Activist Technology (www.cat.org.au) that would allow the public to upload content to the site (Uzelman 2002). The software fit with the activists’ vision of the project because it allowed decentralized media production and content sharing. Whereas traditional Website creation and maintenance required a centralized webmaster or webmistress to upload and organize information, the open publishing software allowed users from any computer to upload, organize, and download the multimedia content. On a practical level, open publishing software permitted the decentralization of work among many media activists and independent journalists, and on an ideological level, it allowed activists to move away from the centralized mass media model, where a few people decide what content is important, to a horizontal, decentralized model that is based on collaboration and reciprocity. As Gal Beckerman says in a Columbia Journalism Review article: “Indymedia organizers had found a technology that fit philosophically with their ideas about how to transform the media. Everyone was now empowered to contribute to the creation of news.” Open publishing⁽³⁾ means that the process of creating the content is transparent to the readers and that they too can get involved, either by writing articles, or by setting up their own site. All content is governed by copyleft, meaning that anyone is free to take and use it for non-profit purposes as long as they give credit to the original author. According to the open publishing philosophy, anyone can be a media manipulator. Also implicit is the open-source-related principle of reciprocity, a concept which cyber-theorist Pierre Lévy sees as integral to virtual communities in that if “we learn something by reading the messages exchanged, we are also expected to provide information whenever it could be of use to someone else” (2001: 103). The historical divide between producer and consumer is narrowed, although, it must be acknowledged, never eliminated completely because of the infamous problematic of the digital divide.⁽⁴⁾

Open Publishing as Praxis

The philosophy of open publishing is central to the work of Indymedia collectives because they seek to create a free information network that is based on a democratic model of production and distribution, in which the plethora of content available is exchanged horizontally. The technology that facilitates open publishing was created within the open source movement, a movement based on the value of equal access to free information— a value much reflected in the media democratization movement. Once this technology was officially in the hands of media activists located in the global justice movement, it was then moulded and further developed to fit the needs and the movement’s philosophies. The point here is that although it may seem as though the software technology influenced the structure of the IMC, it is not the technology which was determinant in this situation, but rather the activists which formed and developed technology in order to fit their needs and values. It is thus important to conceptualize open publishing as a theory, or philosophy, which is put into practice, or praxis, rather than as a technology that determined how the network would develop. As illustrated by the above discussion, the praxis of open publishing reflects the values of the movement—of democracy, reciprocity, free access to information, and collective action. IMC has become what Pierre Lévy calls a “knowledge space.” It is “as much a space within which something happens, as it is a space for something to happen” (discussed in Bach & Stark 2002: 4, emphasis theirs).

Indymedia as a Temporary Autonomous Zone

When speaking of social movements and the Internet, some theorists invoke Habermas’ concept of the public sphere to describe the Internet as a place where groups and networks can create alternative spaces in which to ‘meet,’ discuss and debate, and to carve out visions of alternatives. The attraction to the concept of the public sphere may be connected to its vision of democratic communication, based in notions of access, the narrowing of social inequalities, the focus on common issues, and the privileging of dialogue. A functional public sphere is seen as a “social space wherein public citizens gather as a public body with the rights of assembly, association, and expression in order to form public opinion” (Deluca & Peeples 2002: 128). Yet there are a few limitations in using Habermas’ public sphere theory to describe on-line communities such as Indymedia. Firstly, Habermas’s public sphere is a bourgeois public sphere, which necessarily excludes marginalized groups, women, and those who do not own property. Secondly, it is singular, as in the public sphere. Thirdly, it privileges “rational” speech, a privileging often linked to the marginalization of women’s voices which historically were considered more “emotional” than “rational.” Theorists, such as Nancy Fraser, have engaged with Habermas’s theory, re-vamping it to be of more use in describing the existence of publics and counterpublics (subaltern groups). “Fraser’s conception reverses the terms of Habermas’ analysis so that the object becomes the activity of participants in counterpublics rather than that of participants in an official public sphere” (McLaughlin 1993: 609). This conception of the public sphere is useful here in that it explains how multiple spheres interact in forming and influencing public opinion and in that it acknowledges the importance of subaltern counterpublics.

Also useful in understanding the position of Indymedia within our society is the concept of the Temporary Autonomous Zone (TAZ).⁽⁵⁾ The TAZ is defined as a place or activity “in which for awhile people may live and work as though many of capitalism’s priorities and the state’s restrictions do not apply” (Downing 2003: 249). This concept, which is used by Downing in his exploration of Independent Media Centers’ links to the socialist anarchist tradition, differs from public (and counterpublic) sphere theories in that it does not focus on how subaltern groups inform public opinion or seek to reform hegemonic structures. Instead, it presents the possibility of revolution through the creation of spaces in which to propose, develop, and live out alternatives. The Internet thus offers the possibility of developing TAZs where people can participate in a discursive realm outside of hegemonic institutions, such as the state, schools and universities, and the mainstream media. Within these carved out alternative spaces, activists can use “computer networks to construct discursive resistance to dominant forces—to build alternative paths, hiding places, impromptu monuments, and unauthorized meeting places online”(Wood & Smith 2001:170). The Indymedia network provides a space online in which open publishing can be used to promote dialogue and communication instead of one-way dissemination. Every time someone publishes something on an Indymedia site they are engaging in the active production of media and are also opening themselves up to feedback on their observations and analysis through the commentary function. They are engaging in a space that eliminates some of the barriers to access with regards to media production, one which challenges the politics of speech found in mainstream society, the commodification of information, and state control of communication networks.

There are many benefits to these types of TAZs that strive to live out the alternatives that they propose (a living out that can be defined as activism in that they seek to not only criticize the dominant social order or to engage with the dominant public sphere, but also try to create something new). However, despite the accomplishments possible within the TAZ there can come a time when the problems associated with the structures of capitalism and patriarchy find their way into the TAZ.

When it comes to Indymedia, because it is a media space where people discuss global social justice issues, sexism, racism, and homophobia are addressed in discussions of social issues and solutions. The intentions of the global justice movements linked with Indymedia are specifically to not ignore that inequality and oppressions exist. What Indymedia activists have sought to do is to create a TAZ where these issues can be discussed, uncovered, and where strategies and solutions can be presented. Open publishing seeks to give people equal access to a space for dialogue and information sharing. Yet as the network mushroomed into an expansive global network made up of close to 100 autonomous collectives, it became clear that inequality, homophobia, sexism, racism, anti-Semitism, and other forms of discrimination, as well as disrespect for the principles behind the project, had found their way into the TAZ. Within the Indymedia collectives, which practice direct democracy and non-hierarchy, one way which this manifests itself is as power imbalances relating to gender, race, sexual orientation, class, and knowledge about technology, which have presented challenges on an organizational level. Another way that this manifests, which the following section will explore, is the occurrence of postings to the newswire that reproduce discourses and systems of oppression.

The Development of Open Publishing Policies

The ideal of creating a media source that would be totally inclusive has had to endure tremendous tests. Open publishing, the purest form of the idea, has become, in some instances, Indymedia’s greatest liability. (Beckerman 2003)

Many Indymedia collectives, after experiencing abuses such as postings to their open publishing websites ranging from spam, pornography, and hate-mongering, subsequently decided to invoke editorial policies for their sites. For most collectives this took the form of a policy statement that gave the collective the “right” to filter the newswire’s content and in which their guidelines and action were made transparent. Some collectives, such as Quebec Indymedia, have gone beyond the editorial policy and developed software that supports a validation process, where, once submitted, all articles go to a waiting place (which is accessible to all users) until they are “validated” by a member of the validation committee, after which they are published in the newswire. This section of the paper will outline the policies that Indymedia collectives have put into place in order to deal with some of the challenges of open publishing, from the occurrence of problematic content to the attempt to make content accessible and organized within the site. Tied up with questions of how to deal with problematic content are also questions relating to rights, responsibility, and accountability.

Many Indymedia collectives started out without editorial policies, meaning that there was complete openness with regards to content. Because most of these collectives were started with a particular event in mind, such as covering the summits of the WTO or G8, their initial content revolved around coverage of these events. As well, the Indymedia Global “Principles of Unity”⁽⁶⁾ positions IMCs within social struggles and within movements struggling for the right to communicate and to share information. IMCs are also organized around the principle of human equality, and their principles of unity state that they shall not discriminate on the basis of sex, race, class, or sexual orientation and that they are committed to building diversity within their localities. These strong statements, along with those associated within the philosophy of open publishing outlined above, situate Indymedia as a network and autonomous media project that operates with the goal of actively addressing inequality. The value of freedom of speech is also central to Indymedia. Yet the commitment to addressing inequality and diverse oppressions as well as promoting the right to communicate has presented some challenges to Indymedia collectives.

New York Indymedia developed editorial policies after their site was “deluged with posts that had nothing to do with the people’s struggle – anti-Semitic rants, racist caricatures, and pornography all competed, democratically, for space on the wire. Although an editorial board of volunteers decided what stories to highlight in the centre column, the wire itself became almost unusable” (Beckerman 2003). This is a story common to many IMCs. Many collectives do not develop editorial policies until a situation arises that threatens collective members’ (or sometimes non-collective members’) vision of what is acceptable on the newswire. In interviews conducted with 18 Indymedia participants in Australia, Jenny Pickerill discovered that the editorial policy debate was a key issue for many within collectives. Pickerill writes:

For most of the collectives the extent of any editorial practice remains under debates even where policy has been agreed upon. There is a concern that any interference can be construed as a form of censorship. By excluding those postings that are fascist or employ another form of discrimination the collectives are delineating Indymedia as intolerant of far right views and as an explicitly left project. For many interviewees this exclusion was not problematic as long as the decision-making structure was transparent (and open to newcomers’ contributions). A visible editorial structure was deemed more egalitarian than mainstream media’ hidden editorial process. (Pickerill 2003: 12)

This quote identifies many of the fears behind developing policies that could be construed as legitimating censure. Pickerill’s research also identifies collectives’ belief that an editorial policy is not necessarily contrary to Indymedia’s principles of unity as long as it is developed within the usual democratic and transparent decision-making structures.

The editorial policies⁽⁷⁾ developed by Indymedia collectives are for the most part quite similar to one another in their inclusion of a section outlining the guiding principles of the policy. An example from Seattle Indymedia reads:

1. To provide an unmoderated, open-publishing newswire in accordance with established IMC policies and
philosophy.

2. To maintain the newswire and website as a community space, and a safe environment for users, especially members of disempowered or marginalized groups.

3. To acknowledge that speech has the power to cause injury, but that instances of injurious speech should also be seen as opportunities for insurrectionary response.

4. To preserve the quality of the website as a useful media resource.

With these guiding principles in mind, the second half of the policy outlines that collectives reserve the right to “reclassify” material on the website, which may mean choosing to highlight it in the center column, to bundle it together with several postings on the same topic, or to place it in a “hidden” folder. Posts that are hidden without debate are those which are duplicates of articles on the site, advertisements for jobs or consumer items, or posts that have no content to them. Some collectives interpret the last of these more broadly than others. For some no content means literally a blank posting or only links to another site, whereas other collectives hide material that is devoid of comprehensible material (a bad resolution photo or a rant that has no obvious point). Most collectives agree that there shall be no editing whatsoever of a post, unless requested by the author. Quebec Indymedia has a policy regarding content in that they will occasionally edit obvious spelling mistakes, especially if they are found in the headline. As well, Quebec Indymedia’s policy states that the content must have some relation to social justice issues.⁽⁸⁾

These policies were all developed with much discussion and debate, as mentioned above, and are still placed under scrutiny. Central to the editorial policies of each collective is the principle of transparency. Measures that guarantee that the process of moderating the site is transparent are central to Indymedia collectives because they are based on a critique of the news selection traditions of mainstream media. Transparency takes the form of written statements as to why a post was hidden as well as extensive discussions on editorial list serves and in collective meetings as to whether a post should be hidden, and, if possible, the sending of an email to the person who submitted the post explaining why it was moved or hidden. The editorial policy and all decisions made through it are always open to debate within collectives and from those not involved within the collective. For many collectives this process is one that involves personal reflection as well. The following question is often asked: do I want to hide this post because I do not agree with its content or because it violates the editorial policy?

Many of the posts that Indymedia collectives decide to moderate are “hidden” because they contain racist, sexist, homophobic, libellous content or use language that encourages hate or violence. Although this may seem straightforward in terms of what content should not be on the site, in many cases it is not. I will outline three of these. Firstly, the Indymedia websites are supposed to be a space for dialogue on social problems. Racism and other inequalities exist in our society and some people believe that suppressing them will not make them disappear. Instead, why not use the “add comment” function on the site to spark a debate on the offensive posting as opposed to removing the posting from the newswire? Some collectives choose to leave this material on the main part of the site in order to allow discussions to happen. This tactic seems to work if this type of content is only submitted occasionally, but in the cases of New York, Quebec, and Paris Indymedia sites, among others, the amount of racist and/or sexist (in these cases) postings became so pervasive on their newswires that more vigilant filtering was required. Furthermore, the principles of unity, as mentioned above, state that Indymedia collectives seek to address inequalities. If the newswire propagates sexist and racist points of view can Indymedia be seen as promoting diversity and equality? This is a question that collectives have had to answer when determining whether it is necessary or desirous to narrow the content of the site.

Secondly, it is not always extremely clear whether a posting is, for example, sexist. With the case of Quebec
Indymedia, which involved an extensive flooding of their site with anti-feminist, sexist, and defamatory postings,⁽⁹⁾ the sexism found within the articles was at times subtle, yet present. This made editorial decisions difficult for the collective, partially because of the time consuming process of moderating so many offensive postings. As well, the collective had to decide whether to block all postings from the offending individuals (who after countless requests would not stop posting many messages daily to the newswire and as comments). They decided instead that it was important to judge the posting as to whether it was unacceptable, regardless of who submitted it. The offending individual kept posting sexist and defamatory remarks, to the point that he was symbolically banned from Quebec Indymedia’s site (Quebec Indymedia, 2002); a step that was taken along with other strict editorial policy changes. The metaphor of the “slippery slope” often comes up with Indymedia collectives with regards to moderating their sites (Beckerman 2003); it is a metaphor that envelops the fear involved in making decisions as to what constitutes valid content. It also begs the question of the political orientation of the website—is it only a site for global justice activists and their points of view, or is it a
democratic public sphere where all points of view are welcome? Is Indymedia responsible for promoting free speech at all costs? To whom are they accountable – those wishing to express hate-filled views or those who suffer the consequences of such views?

Lastly, in some cases there can be no debate as to whether a post is made completely inaccessible to the general public because of legal issues. In countries like Canada, it is illegal to publish hate speech, child pornography, or libellous material (Sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code). Therefore collectives within Canada need to be vigilant about content on their site, for the sake of their member’s legal protection. As well, the abundance of copyright laws and the many cases being waged for the protection of “intellectual property” (Perelman 2003; Bollier 2002) make it necessary for collectives to screen content to the best of their abilities to ensure that the content is not copyrighted. Even though Indymedia sites have a disclaimer that says that they are not responsible for the content on the site and that it does not necessarily represent the views of the collective, collectives (in Canada at least) could be held legally responsible for illegal content. When it comes to content that could be perceived as “inciting violence,” collectives also must protect their members. Even before the events of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent increased policing of dissent, collectives were made aware of the dangers of surveillance and police repression that come with being associated with social movements. In Genoa in August of 2001, the Independent Media Centre was raided by Italian police who proceeded to beat activists in their sleep.⁽¹⁰⁾ During the Summit of the Americas in Quebec in 2001, Indymedia Seattle was raided by the FBI, because of a post on Montreal Indymedia (a site hosted on Seattle’s server) that supposedly threatened George W. Bush. These are two documented surveillance cases for Indymedia, and there are many more rumours of surveillance within the network. Although Indymedia operates across national borders and as a TAZ (philosophically outside the state’s reach), this is obviously not the case. There is thus some responsibility that needs to be taken to protect those working within Indymedia collectives and the physical IMCs themselves.

Rights, responsibility, and accountability

With the exercise of power, comes responsibility. For Indymedia collectives, the adoption of editorial policies also meant that they were creating a system where they would have the power to judge what is and what is not appropriate content for the site. Their discomfort in developing these policies is therefore understandable, in that Indymedia’s purpose was to advocate the right to communicate and to provide a space for views that are otherwise not published. With the introduction of policies defining what type of view is acceptable to communicate also come new levels of responsibility. Those screening the content on the site are now responsible for reading all postings, identifying problematic material, and engaging in a discussion with their editorial committees as to what to do with that material. There is also the need to make this process transparent, as discussed above.

The editorial policies have also brought the issue of accountability to light. Collective members become even more accountable to their collaborators (those who read and post to the site) after establishing editorial policies. On the one hand, those who post to the site have a right to know why their post was “hidden” and why. On the other hand, readers may want the right to see this rejected content (which is usually linked to the editorial policy) and may hold collective members accountable if “inappropriate” content makes it onto the site. The second of these has occurred with Quebec Indymedia and Paris Indymedia, both of which have been chastised and pressured from social justice groups regarding the content of their site. In the case of the large amount of sexist material being posted to the Quebec site, there were not only the “masculinists” (the word used to describe the pro-men’s rights/ anti-feminist group doing the posting) to relate with, but also a small group of feminists who were putting extreme pressures on the collective. These individual feminists were upset by the publishing of masculinist material on Quebec Indymedia and used pressure tactics (such as a call for a boycott of the site) in order to push Indymedia members to block all offending users from their site, make all “hidden” posts inaccessible to the public, and to shut down the comment function completely.⁽¹¹⁾ Similarly, Paris Indymedia has recently been declared “irresponsible” in a public letter written by an anarchist group (Alternative libertaire) because of some racist content on their site.⁽¹²⁾ This anarchist group suggests that open
publishing is irresponsible because it allows racist and colonialist discourses space on the site; they also make suggestions on how Paris Indymedia should deal with this issue.

There seems to be a transposition of the notion of responsibility with regards to content found in traditional media onto that found on Indymedia. When readers are upset about content found on the sites, they tend to blame the collectives behind the Indymedia and write a type of “letter to the editor” which includes a threat to end their “subscription,” so to speak. The involvement of collaborators in suggesting improvements to the site is not unwanted by Indymedia collectives, as their principles of unity state that they are open to anyone and that the editorial process is open to scrutiny. And just as some people criticize Indymedia for the content that remains in the newswire, there are also many critiques waged by those who feel that they have experienced censorship.

Evaluation of open publishing policies

With the above discussion in light, it is necessary to point out that even with editorial policies in place, the
process of open publishing is never straightforward, but is instead a constant process of negotiation, development, challenges, and successes. As illustrated above, the most significant obstacle faced by Indymedia collectives in developing policies around open publishing is the balancing of strong values, such as openness, and responsibility. The development of editorial policies, such as those outlined above, has placed Indymedia collectives in the role of mediator—a role that can be confining and limiting. The strong point of this is that it forces collectives take on this role actively, accountably. Whereas before the development of formal policy some collectives engaged in editing of the site in ways that may not have been so transparent, the editorial policies place these activities front and centre in a public document. It is therefore clear how each collective defines open publishing and what their vision is on hate-filled material. On the down side, editorial policies have also loaded work onto the backs of already burdened volunteers. With accountability comes work. If an editorial policy states what types of material are not permitted on the site, it is up to the collectives to ensure that these policies are enacted. In some cases this extra workload has limited collectives’ abilities to take on more projects. The website that supports a movement thus becomes a
liability in terms of resources (people’s un-paid time).

Despite the difficulties in dealing with these challenges, the development of editorial policies has no doubt strengthened the Indymedia network in pushing the limits of the TAZ, in stimulating the development of new open publishing tools within the open source software, and in creating an opportunity for collectives to better define their purpose and their vision of Indymedia. Robert McChesney, media theorist and political economist, says he has always believed that:

… the Indymedia movement is not obliged to be a movement for every point of view under the sun. They need to make tough editorial decisions, and that’s not something to be despondent about. The problem is not that you have to make decisions. The important thing is that you make them based on principles that are transparent. (Quoted in Beckerman)

Indymedia has been placed under scrutiny, as the Quebec and Paris examples show, which has pushed its members to answer difficult questions about the practice of open publishing, which in some cases this has led to the development of new software tools that make the process more transparent and that allow the collaborators to get involved and that decentralize the editorial process. In an article entitled “Three Proposals for Open Publishing” Dru Oja Jay outlines some possibilities, from “filters” to “rating systems” which allow users to rate content and thus take part in deciding which content should be highlighted on the site. These are just a few of the possibilities in the future of open publishing. What is important at this point is that Indymedia collectives examine the effects of the policies that have been enacted, some of which have been outlined here, as well as to continue to evaluate their functionality and to develop new ways of maintaining the balance between philosophy and practice.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the exploration of open publishing as praxis not only provides some clarity with relation to the work of various Indymedia collectives, but also adds to other debates around the “information society.” Tied up in this area of discussion are questions of access, the divide between producers and consumers, media convergence, copyright and intellectual property, participatory media, and the right to communicate, among others. As well, this discussion is essential in the growth of Indymedia. This paper has sought to explore the concept of open publishing, which has rarely been addressed in academic texts, to evaluate the policies that have been enacted to support it, thus illustrating some of the difficulties involved in open publishing. As many collectives who have faced these challenges realize, it is time to move beyond the unquestioning celebration of Indymedia as a revolutionary example, and into public debates about some of the issues that threaten its foundations. It is through these discussions that open publishing theory and practice will continue to provide insights as to what a democratic and participatory media environment looks like.

Bibliography

Aotearoa Independent Media Centre. “What is open publishing?” www.indymedia.org.nz/openpub.php3 [Accessed October 22, 2003].

Anon. (2000). “Indymedia Principles of Unity.” http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/PrinciplesOfUnity [Accessed December 7, 2003].

Arnison, Matthew. (2001). “Open publishing is the same as free software,”
http://www.sarai.net/journal/02PDF/10infopol/10open_publishing.pdf [Accessed October 22, 2003].

Atton, Chris. 2003. “Reshaping Social Movement Media for a New Millennium,” Social Movement Studies, Vol. 2(1): 3-15.

Bach, Jonathan, & David Stark. (2002). “Link, Search, Interact: The Co-Evolution of NGOs and Interactive Technology,” Center on Organizational Innovation: Columbia University, New York.

Beckerman, Gal. (2003). “Edging Away from Anarchy: Inside the Indymedia Collective, Passion vs.
Pragmatism,” Columbia Journalism Review, Issue 5. http://www.cjr.org/issues/2003/5/anarchy-beckerman.asp [Accessed October 22, 2003].

Bey, Hakim. (1991). TAZ: The Temporary Autonomous Zone: Ontological Anarchy, Poetic Terrorism. New York: Autonomedia.

Boido, Pablo. “Combining Digital Technology and Traditional Media to Create Cooperative and Participating Forms of Communication,” Presented at “Our Media III” Conference, Barraquilla Columbia, May 17-20, 2003. www.ourmedianet.org/eng/om2003/OM3_program_Eng.pdf [Accessed October 15, 2003].

Bollier, David. (2002). “The Privatization of Public Knowledge,” Silent Theft: The Private Plunder of Our Common Wealth. NY: Routledge: 110-134.

Branwyn, Gareth. (1997). “The Introduction: New Media Hackers,” Jamming the Media. New York: Chronicle Books: 12-15.

Carroll, William K., Ed. (1998). Organizing Dissent. Toronto: Garamond Press.

CMAQ. (2002). “Editorial Policy,” Centre de Médias Alternatifs du Québec (Québec Indymedia). http://cmaq.net/en/node.php?title=CMAQ’s+editorial+policy [Accessed December 8, 2003]

CMAQ. (2003). “Le CMAQ se donne les moyens de contrer les abus sur son site,” Press Release, Centre de Médias Alternatifs du Québec (Québec Indymedia). http://cmaq.net/fr/node.php?id=12689 [Accessed December 8, 2003].

Demers, Yannick. (2003). “Le Centre des médias alternatifs du Québec (CMAQ), véhicule du discours masculiniste,” Sisyphe. http://sisyphe.org/article.php3?id_article=540 [Accessed December 8, 2003]

Deluca, Kevin Michael & Jennifer Peeples. (2002). “From Public Sphere to Public Screen: Democracy, Activism, and the ‘Violence’ of Seattle,” Critical Studies in Media Communication, Vol.19, Iss. 2.

Downing, John. (2003). “The Independent Media Center Movement and the Anarchist Socialist Tradition,” Contesting Media Power: Alternative Media in a Networked World. Ed. Nick Couldry. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Downing, John. (2002). “A Multi-local, Multi-media Challenge to Global Neoliberalism,” Global Media Policy in the New Millennium, Ed. Marc Raboy. Luton: University of Luton Press.

Garnham, Stephen. (2002). “Bridging Urban Digital Divides? Urban Polarization and Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs),” Urban Studies 39: 33-56.

Indymedia Global. (n.d.) “Principles of Unity,” Indymedia Documentation Project.
http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/PrinciplesOfUnity [Accessed November 25, 2003].

Italy Indymedia. (August 2, 2001). “Horrific raid on GSF and IMC Genoa: Report,” Indymedia Italy. http://italy.indymedia.org/news/2001/08/5539.php [Accessed November 15, 2003].

Jay, Dru Oja. “Three Proposals for Open Publishing,” Published online at:
http://dru.ca/imc/open_pub.html [Accessed October 22, 2003].

Kidd, Dorothy. (n.d.). “Media Meet the WTO Protests,” http://www.presscampaign.org/ articles_7.html [Accessed October 1, 2002].

Lévy, Pierre. (2001). Cyberculture. (Translated by Robert Bononno) Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Light, Jennifer S. (Winter 2002). “Rethinking the Digital Divide,” Harvard Education Review 71, 4: 709-733.

McLaughlin, Lisa. (1993). “Feminism, the public sphere, media and democracy,” Media, Culture, and Society Vol. 15. London: Sage.

Melucci, Alberto. (1996). Challenging Codes: Collective Action in the Information Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mosco, Vincent. (2003). “The Transformation of Communication in Canada,” Changing Canada: Political Economy as Transformation. Eds. Wallace Clement & Leah F. Vosko. Montreal: Queens University Press.

New Zealand Indymedia. (2003). “Editorial Policy.” http://indymedia.org.nz/ edpolicy.php3 [Accessed November 16, 2003].

Norris, Pippa. (2001). “Civic Engagement,” Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Paris Indymedia. (2003). “Communiqué IndyMedia Paris / Île de France du 5 décembre 2003,” Indymedia Paris. http://paris.indymedia.org/article.php3?id_article=11947 [Accessed December 8, 2003]

Perelman, Michael. (January 2003). “The Political Economy of Intellectual Property,” Monthly Review: 29-37.

Pickerill, Jenny. “Out in the Open: Indymedia Networks in Australia,” Presented at the iCS Symposium, Oxford University, September 2003.

Rinaldo, Rachel. (2000). “Indymedia Mobilizes For the Sequel To Seattle,”AlterNet. [Retrieved October 2, 2002 from http://www.tbwt.com/views/feat/feat1906.asp]

Seattle Indymedia. (n.d.) Editorial Policy. http://seattle.indymedia.org/policy.php3 [Accessed November 15, 2003].

Shade, Leslie Regan. (2002).“Open source,” Encyclopedia of New Media. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Uzelman, Scott. (2002). “Catalyzing Participatory Communication: Independent Media Centre and the Politics of Direct Action,” Master’s Thesis, Simon Frazer University.

Wood, Andrew F., and Matthew J. Smith. (2001). Online Communication: Linking Technology, Identity, and Culture. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

(1) This definition of open source software was influenced by the definition provided in the Encyclopedia of New Media (Shade 2002).

(2) For more information on the history and rise of the Indymedia phenomenon, read: Kidd (2002; 2003); Downing (2002; 2003); Boido (2003); Atton (2003); or Uzelman (2002).

(3) Matthew Arnison, one of the developers of IMC software, suggests a working definition of open publishing: “Open publishing means that the process of creating news is transparent to the readers. They can contribute a story and see it appear instantly in the pool of stories publicly available. Those stories are filtered as little as possible to help the readers find the stories they want. Readers can see editorial decisions being made by others. They can see how to get involved and help make editorial decisions. If they can think of a better way for the software to help shape editorial decisions, they can copy the software because it is free and change it and start their own site. If they want to redistribute the news, they can, preferably on an open publishing site.”

(4) Due to space restrictions, this paper cannot engage in a significant discussion of the digital divide. For more on this debate see: Light (2002); Norris (2001); Garnham (2002). Yet it must be noted that Indymedia can be seen to be addressing the digital divide in their commitment to sharing skills and knowledge, and in their advocating that everyone can be a media producer.

(5) This term was coined and developed by Hakim Bey (1991). See also Jamming the Media by Gareth Branwyn (1997).

(6) See:
http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/PrinciplesOfUnity.

(7) For examples of editorial policies see: Seattle Indymedia ( http://seattle.indymedia.org/policy.php3 ); New Zealand Indymedia ( http://indymedia.org.nz/edpolicy.php3 ) or, Quebec Indymedia ( http://cmaq.net/fr/node.php?title=La+politique+%E9ditoriale+du+CMAQ ).

(8) Quebec Indymedia uses a vivid example to delineate what they mean by this. They say:

“First, the document is evaluated in regard to its conformity to CMAQ’s objectives and orientations, that is, mainly, the promotion of social justice. Specifically, it is evaluated according to its relevance to the themes that the CMAQ develops and promotes in its own mission: globalization and its multiple impacts, free trade, grassroots mobilization, the environment, social justice and any pertinent criticism of the actual political and economic system. In other words, a submitted document about the colour of bears in the North Pole would not be considered relevant. On the other hand, a document that addresses (sic) the politics of the IMF and its repercussions on the environment AND, incidentally, the colour of the (sic) bears, would be published.”

(9) See the collectives’ press release about the situation: http://cmaq.net/fr/node.php?id=12689.

(10) See Italy Indymedia [
http://italy.indymedia.org/news/2001/08/5539.php ] for an account of the raid.

(11) See the call for boycott at:
http://sisyphe.org/article.php3?id_article=540

(12) The letter, as well as Paris Indymedia’s response can be found at: http://paris.indymedia.org/article.php3?id_article=11947 .

Pages: 1 2 3 4

tags:   

[ originally posted on Sunday, April 25th, 2004 at 11:56 pm and is filed under Communication, Everything, Media, Open Source, Papers. ]