Talk:Indymedia/Archive 3

Question
How and why one earth has the characterization of Indymedia being focused around an agenda of anti-capitalism made its way into this entry? That is not within Indymedia's core mission or points of unity, and while there are certainly stories with anti-capitalist agendas and frameworks contributed to Indymedia, there are also stories that advocate very different positions and viewpoint.

The central organizing theme of Indymedia is citizen, grassroots, activist journalism. Under that umbrella there's a wide, wide diversity of political and ideological possible and evident in Indymedia work. Attempts at sweeping ideological characterizations is neither accurate nor NPOV acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.168.232 (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Changes Sept 2008

 * Added photo gallery -photos where a;ready on wikimedia.
 * added social software section
 * started radio & video section -Needs more work.
 * changed some photos -Needs more work.

Changes August 2007
The 3 disputes at the top should be moved down to the section marked "Attacks on Indymedia", marco.

I need a rest after this last lot of activity. Two useful links reflecting on IMC that I haven't had time to incorporate into the "Criticism" section:
 * There's still work to be done on (IMHO) the overall structure, especially around the Org Structure section.
 * There's references still to be chased down and tidied up, should be obvious where.
 * External links should be trimmed
 * the article is still too long. I think the Attacks on Journalists and Server Seizures sections can be spun off into their own articles
 * Red Pepper mag, undated
 * What's the matter with Indymedia, Jennifer Whitney.

Chaikney 19:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup and copyedit needed
This article is not compliant with Wikipedia content policies, as it based mostly on primary sources as well as containing substantial original research (as for example the comparison with Wikinews). Unless secondary sources are forthcoming, this article needs to be paired down to what can be attributed to reliable sources, in addition to the primary sources originating from this website. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I re-read the article, and I am quite concerned about the lack of sources and the lack of compliance. I am replacing the cleanup tags with noncompliant. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

POV consider themselves to be independent journalists
This has the definate tone of "they call themselves journalists". It is rather POV. Since freedom of the press is an inalienable right and one does not need a license to "practice journalism", that is, report what they see. It seems that some, YES some people want to consider those without a journalism degree as somehow not being qualified to report what they see with their own eyes. This line of thinking makes a degree a de facto license to do journalism. Being also open source, wikipedia should know this. 67.53.78.15 02:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the distinction is between platforms where an editorial staff checks a journalist's work before publication for accuracy, sources, and NPOV, and "citizen journalism" platforms like Indymedia where users can self-publish articles without any such editorial oversight. There are pros and cons to both approaches, but there's no question they are different. Danylstrype (talk) 07:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Bias in the caption for the photo of the greek policeman
Does anyone else think that the caption for the photo of the Greek policeman "attacking" an indymedia protester is just ever so slightly biased?

Rmkf1982 Talk 14:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * So change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wachholder0 (talk • contribs)


 * Hi, I am the one who uploaded the picture from athens.indymedia to wikipedia and I also added the photo to the page and wrote the caption. Could you please specify exactly what it is that you find biased? I used the word "attack" as the officer is doing exactly that, holding the baton upside-down. For further information please refer to the image's description page and the athens.indymedia pages linked to from there. --Michalis Famelis (talk)  10:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi
 * "A Greek riot policeman attacking an Indymedia photographer. The policeman holds his service baton from the reverse end aiming to injure rather than to repel."
 * That's what I find biased - you're accusing a policeman of attacking someone with the aim to cause harm - that's a pretty serious charge to be making against someone who can't defend himself here. There is nothing to say what the circumstances were - the officer could have been acting to defend himself after being attacked himself, we don't know.  The point is, making judgements like that against people is unnecessary - surely a more neutral caption would be better for an encyclopedia article - Wikipedia is not Indymedia after all.
 * Rmkf1982 Talk 22:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * For more information about the circumstances of the event, as I noted above, please take a look at the athens.indymedia article linked to from the image description page. Sure, it is in Greek, but there are many many photos. Here is a direct link:, and some more articles linked to from the main indymedia article: ,.
 * The photo was taken at of the Courts of Athens, when (for the first time in Greek history) Police fired teargas inside the Courts complex that even reached the courtrooms against the parents and colleagues of circa 50 students that were arrested during a student demonstration on March 8 2007. Their trial started on March 12 (when the photos were taken), and ended two or three weeks ago, with all the students being acquitted. The story is pretty much this: the 50 students were all brought to trial together at a very small courtroom that could carry no more than about 100 people. The courtroom was therefore packed with the defendants and the policemen brought forth as accusing witnesses. The students' parents and colleagues were not allowed entry to the courtroom, to which they reacted trying to force their way in, to which the police reacted violently.
 * Concerning the specific photo. By Greek law, it is illegal for the police to use their batons upside down (the lower side, the handle is solid metal and can cause serious injury, while the upper side is layered with rubber). As you can see by the photo, and more clearly by a consecutive photo, the policeman is holding the baton upside down. The photos made it to the news of national TV networks, and major journalists made a big fuss about it.
 * Now, apart from all this, which is the context. I understand that what I originally wrote can be perceived as trying to read the officer's mind. But I cannot really imagine what else he could be trying to do, using the baton upside down. The law is very specific in prohibiting such use of batons for precisely that reason.
 * Anyway, and for the sake of synthesis, how do you think we could improve the caption?
 * --Michalis Famelis (talk)  09:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This photo is quite well known in Greece and has been used in Greek newspapers and TV channels. All of them were reporting exactly what Michalis Famelis says above: the policeman is attacking and -as you can see- he is using his baton upside down (!). --Michkalas 10:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * OK - Well first of all, thank you for being civil about this, responding to my concerns in detail, and seeking compromise. Unfortunately, my experience has been that some people have vested interests in their photos or articles and can become quite agressive.


 * I must admit to not having followed the links to the other articles you referenced but having read the information you added above, it seems pretty clear that we're not looking at a case of bias at all.


 * In terms of improving the caption / article, my suggestion would be that what you have said above about Greek law prohibiting the use of the batons in this manner, and the background to the event, should go in the article, or should be referenced in some way - I know this is not an article about the specfic events that took place in Athens so maybe the full detailed account wouldn't be appropriate (crete a new article perhaps?). What you have said above basically answers any questions that I could see anyone having, if like me, they arrived at this article, looked at the caption, and thought "bias".  With all the information to hand, it's clear that its not biased but is quite factual.  It's perhaps the amount of information that's crammed into the caption that makes it look biased when in fact it may just be trying to do too much in a small space.


 * How about creating a new section (unless I'm missing one that's already there) dealing with the events in Athens - maybe a paragraph describing what you wrote above, including the information about Greek law - obviously with a reference so that people know it's verifiable. Then put the photo within the new section, with a shorter caption.  That way, all the information is contained in the article, clearly described, and people can place the image in the context of the events that took place, and as a result can reach the same conclusion you did i.e. that the officer was at best wantonly breaking Greek law, or at worst, aiming to severely hurt as you say.  The new section might be quite topical at the moment as well if the trial has just ended a few weeks ago.


 * What do you think? Thanks.  Rmkf1982  Talk 20:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for a new section and the wording wont change. The police man is trying to hit the photographer, as the photograph suggest. You are the one who has to provide proof that the police-man isn't trying to use force. I can't believe that there are arguments raised for it, the guy is clearly ready to use force. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Fair use rationale for Image:Imclogo.gif
Image:Imclogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

addition of links
A user is attempting to add two links. One is to a personal website of an individual who has claimed he was "banned" from DC Indymedia, the other is the ideological website of a political organization. The addition of partisan links of this nature into the entry on the IMC is simply advertising for groups the individual is partisan to. Should all such organizations be added, it would become contentious. In these two particular cases, one is a political group (not "independent") and the other is owner/operated. In either case, they are not relevent and should not be added.In the Stacks 18:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that if there were very many such organisations, the selection of a few would be partisan and contentious, but as far as I am aware there are few organisations of this type notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. Your statement that "one is a political group" and "the other is owner/operated" is entirely irrelevant - the question is whether or not these are related articles. I think they are similar articles - primarily north american, vaguely lefty/anarchist media/publishing outlets. I think that the links provide a definite navigational aid to similar articles per Wikipedia criteria for See Also sections. As such, I am restoring the links until a reasonable argument is made to the contrary. Skomorokh  incite  18:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is an entry on Indymedia. Not various websites. They are not IMCs, and scores of groups have actively participated with Indymedia Having an entry on Wikipedia is not a measure of "notability", especially when they are maintained by the interested parties. In the Stacks 18:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Neither site is "open-publishing". Also worth a mention.In the Stacks 18:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't see anything at all relevant in your comments. I did not claim that having an article on Wikipedia was a measure of notability. My point was that the topic of the article Indymedia and the topics of the articles CrimethInc. and Infoshop are related and thus consistent with the Wikipedia criteria for See Also sections. Skomorokh  incite  19:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of recent attempts at wikification
I just tried to integrate all the raw links into the references section, correct spellings, remove redundant categories and wikify section headings. User:In The Stacks has (possibly inadvertently) reverted my edits and I cannot restore them without violating 3RR. I'd appreciate if someone else would. Thanks, Skomorokh  incite  19:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's my bad. I didn't mean to do that. On the same topic, the "Indymedia Journalist Homocide" title is ridiculous. Some guy used open-publishing to (allegedly) post some confession to an unrelated crime. That's like putting a section on an entry about telephones regarding a "Telephone Killer" because he told someone he'd done whatever. Is the 3RR thing done by robots? In the Stacks 19:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries, not to sure how the 3RR thing works but I think you've reverted my See Also edits 3 times now so you could be in breach. I didn't make the "Indymedia journalist homicide" thing a section, it was already there - but according to WaPo it's legit. P.S. Could some third party please change the article back? Thanks Skomorokh  incite  19:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Ref tags
This article doesn't use reference footnotes correctly (or at all). There's a references section, but no reference tags are used! Thus, the reference section is empty. Timneu22 12:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
I am removing what I assume to be vandalism (though not in bad fiath) of the article, it is at least badly writen, in the wrong place, an opinion and unsubstantiated as far as I see. Although it might be intresting for people who are actually intrested in Indymedia, I am really just seeing what it is at the moment, the vandalism is here: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.141.184.221 (talk) 10:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Reference 22(should link to editorial policy) is trolling... It links to "process.indymedia.org"(dead link) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.212.81.231 (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Dec 2007 cuts
Info preserved here so that it can be reliably sourced and re-integrated:
 * Subsequently, a townhall meeting was held at the University of Houston in response to the alleged police abuse where HPD Assistant Chief Martha Montalvo was present, alongside a police sergeant from Special Operations. Mayor Bill White and members of the Houston City Council were invited, but a staff member from the Office of Houston City Controller Annise Parker showed up since a member of HPD's Citizens Review Committee was present. One photographer who photographed the HPD Mounted Patrol jumping their horses on the sidewalk had two of his pictures used in the Houston Press (the anonymous photographer would photograph the anti-KKK rally in Tomball, TX on 6.11.05 that prompted his retirement from photojournalism). It is alleged that Scott Parkin was rowdy when he shoved police barricades (as seen by a photographer) right before relocating to Australia and later deported in September 2005.


 * On June 20, 2005, Ernesto Torres, a journalist with Indymedia Rosario and Free Air Community Radio, was assaulted by members of the pro-government group Movimiento Barrios de Pie, while covering a march in opposition to the regime of the Argentinian president Néstor Kirchner.

Skomorokh incite 20:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The image caption
It's really not clear from the image itself who is being threatened. It appears to me that the cameraman could be some distance away: it's not radically wide-angle, and it contains his whole body. From the other pictures, the riot police were behind a wall and towered above the crowd. It's quite possible that the policeman was threatening someone closer to the wall below him. We really can't draw conclusions about where the baton was "aimed." I agree with Jossi's version. We should stick to verifiable claims. Cool Hand Luke 22:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Bad sentence
"While some[attribution needed] criticize Indymedia for adopting a position hostile to the interests of capital, others believe that this is the purpose of the media."

This doesn't make any sense to me. What is meant by "media"? Indymedia? If so the sentence should read

"While some[attribution needed] criticize Indymedia for adopting a position hostile to the interests of capital, others believe that this is Indymedia's rightful purpose."

Also, can someone tell me where it was decreed that Wikipedia can't use Indymedia as a source? Is anyone else here a bit angry about that, or is my frustration just naive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.197.53 (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Indymedia languages
The main Indymedia has articles in several languages (English, German, French, etc), but there are sub-domains in other languages, too, like romania.indymedia.org. Does anybody has the time to sort things out? Kenshin (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Merger
Three weeks ago, a merger of whatever content from Bristol Indymedia that was salvagable as notable into this article was proposed. See Talk:Bristol Indymedia. That is ample time for anyone who wanted to object to do so; only one voice has been raised in opposition, user:Jezhotwells, and WP:NOTUNANIMITY is clear that a single dissenting vote does not forestall consensus. Consensus therefore supports the merger, something I sought and received confirmation of at WP:CNB.

To sharpen the point, I should note: consensus is that Bristol Indymedia should cease to exist as an independent article, that its page be redirected here, and that its remains be interred in this article. Whether the editors of this article choose to keep some, all, or none of that material is beyond the scope of consensus.

The merger has, accordingly, proceeded. dif What you do with this material during its stay here, I leave to you. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW }
 * There was no consensus for this merger, for further details please see Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * An RfC has been opened. Discussion at Talk:Bristol Indymedia. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * For the record, there was consensus for the merger, as several editors have told Jez (apart from myself, he was told this at WP:CNB by User:David_Fuchs, user:Iridescent, and user:KillerChihuahua, and at Talk:Bristol Indymedia by user:Hans_Adler and user:DGG). Jez may have stonewalled the merger, but he won't be allowed to play down his accomplishment. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * After a full run for Jez's RFC, the consensus has grown stronger and the merge has accordingly proceeded again. My remarks above are reinstated. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Popular and often-using media for leftwing-extremists
The Verfassungsschutz in Germany, Switzerland and Austria Characterizing indy-media as far-left.--95.114.16.124 (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Updates 2014
This whole page needs updating. 1. reseizure of Bristol servers and closure of Bristol Indymedia this year. 2. The growing use of Facebook and Twitter instead of Indymedia and it's actual decline

Updates 2015
There are very few new articles on Indymedia these days.

The Global Indymedia project has come to an end in real terms.

Tags
added a number of tags to the article. In order to do anything with these, I'm hoping he/she will explain them here and possibly suggest some ways to address the issues? --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 17:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I was going to address them today so thank you for reminding me. On the unreliable sources tag, there are multiple sources from places such as World Socialist Website and Ratical that need to be replaced with RS's because those sources are not reliable and there also tend to be a lot of primary sources which while not against policy, it would be better if they could be replaces with third party reliable sources. I think I can just combine the other two tags explanation because the way they are written is why I dispute their neutrality. When I read through it, it just seems very promotional. I plan to address the issues by doing a quick read through of the article looking for that kind of promotional language and clean it up as well as researching reliable sources to replace the primary and unreliable sources. I will probably do that in the next couple of days and then remove the tags. - SantiLak  (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've tried to make the language more neutral and feel it is okay now and not promo. Therefore, I have removed those tags (also note that Indymedia collectives don't usually sell anything). Regarding the reliability of the sources, I've not dug into that issue yet.Jonpatterns (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, there is still duplication of information. The structure of the article could be improved to avoid covering the same ground twice.Jonpatterns (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Independent Media Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141203013029/http://seattle.indymedia.org:80/en/1999/11/2.shtml to http://seattle.indymedia.org/en/1999/11/2.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Independent Media Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071219152906/http://www.richardallan.org.uk:80/?m=200410 to http://www.richardallan.org.uk/?m=200410
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091101145131/http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11476prs20040830.html to http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11476prs20040830.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090206025407/http://www.ifj.org:80/en/articles/more-intimidation-than-crime-busting-says-ifj-as-police-target-independent-media-network to http://www.ifj.org/en/articles/more-intimidation-than-crime-busting-says-ifj-as-police-target-independent-media-network

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Independent Media Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071008184935/http://www.aclu.org:80/freespeech/protest/11476prs20040830.html to http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11476prs20040830.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120829051638/http://www.rsf.org/Two-suspects-in-cameraman-Brad.html to http://www.rsf.org/Two-suspects-in-cameraman-Brad.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Independent Media Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071008184935/http://www.aclu.org:80/freespeech/protest/11476prs20040830.html to http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11476prs20040830.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Total overhaul needed
Disclosure: as it says on my user page, I was involved in Indymedia. This included participating in a number of working groups of the Global Network of IMCS (including being one of the founders of the AlternativesIMC working group), and I was also one of the founders of the Aotearoa Independent Media network of collective that set up Indymedia.org.nz. So anything I say here should be considered in that light.

This article has changed a lot since I last looked at it. No doubt most of that was well-meaning, attempting to tidy up the article to keep it in line with evolving Wikipedia norms. However, I can't help but think a lot of the significance of the Indymedia project has been lost in the process. I think it needs a first principles rethink. Looking back on the years I spent working with Indymedia, there are a number of things that seem notable to me. I started to write about them here, but it just got too long, so I've moved it to my own wiki, and it will probably become a blog piece (note: all dates for the launching of websites and organisations are sourced from their Wikipedia pages). Danylstrype (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Danylstrype, do you plan to improve the article? It's very ragged now, and any reader trying to contact a  local Indymedia collective in Australia could be forgiven for thinking that "Indymedia is history", although a quick check shows that Indymedia Aotearoa, at least, is very active.  Even the global Indymedia page doesn't have any updates to the main news ticker since late 2013!


 * I don't think it's possible to improve the existing article. It's the wilting remains of a much longer article subject to aggressive pruning, and IMHO a from-scratch rewrite is in order. Indymedia is a big and potentially contentious topic, and I think it needs a group effort, which would also help to moderate any bias I might inadvertently bring due to my personal involvement. Danylstrype (talk) 04:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I suggest the following program of work:
 * Archive the current contents of this talk page (is there a standard procedure for this?), to clear space for collaboration on the replacement article.
 * Gather as many articles on Indymedia as possible from reliable, secondary sources, that can be used as references for the new article so it doesn't end up being pruned to death again.
 * Agree on a structure for the new article, covering all the key things that make Indymedia notable by the Wikipedia definition. I've suggested some possible section topics on my wiki, based on what I think makes it notable, particularly its place in the history of new coverage on the web, citizen journalism, free code/ open source development of CMS, open-publishing, free/ libre/ open licensing of text other than source code, and so on.
 * divvy up the tasks of drafting the sections, and adding relevant references, among the group of editors willing to work on this rewrite project.
 * organise a time for a coordinated sprint to reboot the page, get the new section structure in place, and start populating it with relevant content.
 * create the new page format and import any existing content that is relevant, well-written, and refenced, or can be referenced.
 * browse older versions of the page for any relevant, and well-written content that was removed for lack of references, find references for it, and restore to the article. Danylstrype (talk) 04:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * In order to prevent this page becoming too long again, we need to think about what other WP pages we can link to and perhaps add to, what would be the most relevant WP pages for the "See Also", and the most pertinent "External links", and what sub-topics of Indymedia may be notable enough to have their own page (eg some of the larger, still active IMC sites like IndyBay already have their own pages). Danylstrype (talk) 04:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Your proposal seems sound. As I have next to no knowledge of the Indymedia phenomenon, and there's clearly a lot of work needed researching suitable references, I don't feel I can be much help under my current (time and energy) constraints.  Sorry about that!   :-(  Unless, that is, we can scare up at least a handful of editors willing to pitch in.  yoyo (talk) 15:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * One important change to the article would be to locate it more firmly in the context of "free content" citizen journalism by elaborating on Indymedia's chief successors: answering the question "Where have all the citizen journos gone?" This, of course, assumes that they haven't all given up!


 * The following chunk of the "History" section makes that assumption seem doubtful:

By 2014 the network had declined significantly, with the number of active sites down to 68.[ A number of reasons for the decline have been put forward. In an article published by the journal Convergence Eva Giraud summarised some of the different arguments that had been made by academics and activists, which included informal hierarchy, bureaucracy, security issues including IP address logging, lack of regional engagement, lack of class politics, increase in web 2.0 social media use, website underdevelopment, decline in volunteers and decline in the global justice movement.

Alternative Bristol pointed to security reasons for the decline. It stated that since server seizures Indymedia UK has been used less and less with on average only one new posting per week. It added activists are moving to alternative media content providers and more secure methods since the Snowden leaks.


 * But some of the explanations summarised by Giraud merely beg the question:
 * lack of regional engagement
 * lack of class politics
 * decline in volunteers and
 * decline in the global justice movement.
 * Why should any of these things happen? Her other explanations are more plausible.


 * In summary, the article still needs improvement, particularly to place Indymedia in a continuing historical context. yoyo (talk) 01:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Having read the discussion above about the merging of the IMC Bristol page, and the essay on notability by Uncle G, I wonder if what really needs doing is a project to research and write the history of the IMC network from an outside POV? If more scholars/ journalists who were never involved in IMC wrote some retrospective papers/ articles on it, those could be used as sources for improving the coverage of IMC on Wikipedia. The program of work I proposed a) needs resources beyond what WikiMedia offers, and b) would always be at risk of drifting into original research, and being contentious. Danylstrype (talk) 07:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * There's an interesting and relevant 2013 analysis at Indymedia: It’s time to move on, with quite a few intelligent and informed comments as well. yoyo (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

More references that could be used to improve the coverage in this article

 * 'Reconstructing the Internet: How Social Justice Activists Contest Technical Design in Cyberspace' from MC Journal: http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0603/10-milberry.php --Danylstrype (talk) 04:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 'Indymedia: It’s time to move on' from Ceasefire Magazine: https://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/indymedia-its-time-move/ Danylstrype (talk) 07:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Independent Media Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120829051638/http://www.rsf.org/Two-suspects-in-cameraman-Brad.html to http://www.rsf.org/Two-suspects-in-cameraman-Brad.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.active.org.au/doc/roots.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://seattle.indymedia.org/en/1999/11/2.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Independent Media Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://archives.lists.indymedia.org/imc-nyc/2000-August/000130.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080907133043/http://www.bristol.indymedia.org/article/688390 to http://www.bristol.indymedia.org/article/688390
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090710013450/http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/PrinciplesOfUnity to http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/PrinciplesOfUnity

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Independent Media Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090206025407/http://www.ifj.org/en/articles/more-intimidation-than-crime-busting-says-ifj-as-police-target-independent-media-network to http://www.ifj.org/en/articles/more-intimidation-than-crime-busting-says-ifj-as-police-target-independent-media-network

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Tor-logo-2011-flat.svg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Bristol indymedia.jpg