 |
 |
Dear All, I am sorry to bore you again with WAC business, but since you saw a chapter of this story I thought you should be entitled to see its continuation. You may remember that a while ago some of us sent a letter to the WAC executive lamenting their decision of censoring emails sent to the WAC list (the letter was also sent to arch-justice and you can see it again at the bottom of this email). The WAC executive has now kindly replied to our message, via the WAC list (see below). I sent a short reply to the WAC list, but this was - perhaps inevitably - censored, unlike another solitary email that expressed support for the executive's position. A clear example that not every WAC member's opinion counts the same - at least according to the WAC list 'moderators'. Claire, of course if any of the information I have reported is incorrect, you are welcome to rectify it on this list. Be assured that you won't be censored. Cheers, Umberto Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:11:34 +0000 From: Umberto Albarella <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask], Claire Smith <[log in to unmask]> Cc: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [Wac] WAC Policy Forum Dear Claire, Many thanks for your reply. Differences of opinions are fine, as you say. To describe, however, perfectly polite emails that were sent to the list in such terms "We have rejected emails to the list that we felt were potentially libelous, or contained what we felt was innuendo or unfounded accusations", is grossly unfair. It is infact this move from 'moderation' to 'censorship' that has caused us alarm and moved us into action. Looking forward to discussing this further on your fora, in the hope that all WAC members will equally be entitled to express their opinions. Cheers, Umberto Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 09:02:11 +1030 From: Claire Smith <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Cc: [log in to unmask] Reply-to: [log in to unmask] Subject: [Wac] WAC Policy Forum Below is the Executive's response to a recent email which asked us to reverse our decision about channelling WAC policy issues to the WAC Forums. For those who are following this, they need to read from the bottom up. A report on the development of the WAC web site is on the WAC website and will be sent to the list in a separate email. We hope the Forums will be operational in the next week or two. all the best, Claire Dear all, Thank you for your email. We do appreciate you thinking about these issues deeply. As you say, it is important that these issues be discussed frankly, and in the spirit of ensuring a robust organisation. Of course, in a robust organisation all of the people will not agree all of the time! We understand that you are raising these issues because you all care deeply about the role that WAC plays in the world. There is a slight misconception in your email, which I'll clear up here. The misconception is when you refer to: 'a recent decision by you to start vetting each and every message before it goes out, rather than simply filtering out only spam'. This does not reflect the situation fully. We have always vetted emails sent to the WAC list. It is a moderated list. As you say, we filter out spam (and bounce-back messages), but we have also stopped occasional emails that were impolite to other members. Usually, these people were asked to re-think their email, and re-send it with the language toned down. Sometimes they did this, sometimes they didn't. We have banned one person from the list, on the basis of that person having used the list to send abusive emails to individuals. The moderators also intercept personal emails, when people inadvertently reply to the list, though they intended to reply to an individual, and emails with attachments, which are not forwarded, as downloading attachments can be expensive and annoying for people who have dial-up connections, especially if it is an internet, as for some members. Having said this, you are right that we have changed our practice in the last few months. We have rejected emails to the list that we felt were potentially libelous, or contained what we felt was innuendo or unfounded accusations. Not everyone would agree with our decisions. As you know, WAC is made up of peoples from many different socio-cultural backgrounds and sometimes what is acceptable to one person, or group of people, is not acceptable to others. WAC has grown enormously over the last couple of years, and the Executive feels that WAC policy decisions should be informed by discussions by WAC members only. As you know, there are at least 1,000 people on the list who are not members. This is a good thing, for both WAC and the list-members, but we do not feel that people who are not members of WAC should be an active part of WAC policy making. The Executive's solution is to establish the WAC Policy Forums. We know that they are taking a long time to get up. This is because we need new site architecture to get them to run, and we are doing at minimal cost, and with maximum use of volunteer labour. WAC is an organisation run by volunteers, and the people who work for us in a voluntary capacity have to fit WAC tasks in, after their employment and other career tasks, and sometimes at some cost to their personal lives. Sometimes, we have to wait. The WAC Policy Forums will be open to debate by WAC members, and the very first one will be on the use of the WAC list. The emails that were not sent through to the list will be placed on the forum (assuming we have the permission of their senders). Members of the Executive will have an opportunity to express their individual views on whether these emails should have been sent to the list, and the people who sent them will be able to have their say. This will feed into a discussion thread open to all members. We will conduct an opinion poll of members regarding their views on what should, and what should not be posted to the list, and all the members of your group are welcome to have input to the questions we ask in that survey form. We can put this up off-line, for discussion, before it is opened up for comment. We would welcome your input into this. The Executive feels that WAC policy discussions should be made among WAC members only, and will will stick to this until the Policy Forums are up. WAC is run on subscriptions by members and our view is that if people do not care to be members, they do not have a right to direct our thoughts on policy matters. However, it may be that others (maybe many others) feel as you do, in which case we may decide to refer this to discussion by the Council. All WAC members will have the opportunity to have input into this process. We do not preclude a different outcome to our current practice - but we are committed to any change being informed by members only . We agree with you that this is an important issue. At the moment, you are asking us to reverse a decision that we feel is in the best interests of WAC. However, the Executive feels that we need to have feedback from the general membership on this. So, our reply is to ask you to be patient for a little longer, until the WAC Policy Forums are up. We know that this is a slower process than some people want, but we hope you understand our reasoning, even if you do not agree with it. We are currently renewing our efforts to get the WAC Policy Forums up, and the latest report on how this is going is on the WAC web site. These Forums will be up soon, and you will all have the opportunity to have your say. In fact, with your permission, we would like to use your email (below) and our response as a way of inititating member discussion on this important issue. Once again, thanks again for working together on this, and taking the time to help us shape WAC. all the best, Claire Smith, for the Executive >Dear Members of the WAC executive, > >(and, for information, members of the WAC Council and subscribers to the WAC >email list) > >With this letter we would like to express our concern regarding some of your >recent decisions to do with the debate on controversial issues. Issues such as >funding from trans-national corporations and the relationship between >archaeologists and the military are extremely important, and we applaud your >decision to throw these issues open to debate. But the unwillingness to allow >for such discussion to take place openly and in a fair spirit of collaboration >and solidarity has been upsetting. We recently witnessed two disturbing >phenomena: a) the censorship (by the WAC leadership) of email messages to the >WAC on-line discussion lists, messages that touched upon some of these >controversial issues. Apparently, this is linked >to a recent decision by you to >start vetting each and every message before it goes out, rather than simply >filtering out only spam, as it was the case until now (some of the undersigned >fell victims of that censorship); b) your decision to initiate an ‘only >members’ web-based WAC policy forum, with invited statements which will >eventually lead to a vote – on what we are still not sure. Moreover, it seems >that issues such as the sponsorship by controversial corporations with dubious >ethical record, are being framed as a general and abstract discussion on >“engagement”, diverting thus from the core of the dispute. Both developments >are extremely disturbing. We ask you to reconsider these decisions and to: a) >reinstate the WAC on-line list as a free and >open medium without censorship and >prior vetting; otherwise, the list is bound to loose all credibility b) open >the web-based policy forums on the recent controversial issues to all, members >and non-members alike. We hope that eventually a >willingness to re-establish an >open exchange of ideas will prevail; and that WAC will endorse again the core >principles of its origins and history. As WAC members and/or former members of >the WAC executive we will endeavour to continue working towards this aim. > >Yours sincerely, > >Umberto Albarella >Alejandro Haber >Yannis Hamilakis >Efthymia Alphas >Ioanna Antoniadou >Magnus Bernhardsson >Brian Boyd >Emily Dean >Emily Forster >Cristobal Gnecco >Sam Hardy >Brian Hole >Ivana Carina Jofre >David Kojan >Wilhelm Londono >Beth Pauls >Laura Roda >Maggie Ronayne >Anastasia Sakellariadi >Nick Shepherd >Sarah Viner -- Umberto Albarella Department of Archaeology University of Sheffield Northgate House West Street Sheffield S1 4ET United Kingdom Telephone: (+) 44 (0) 114 22 22 943 Fax: (+) 44 (0) 114 27 22 563 http://www.shef.ac.uk/archaeology/staff/albarella.html For Archaeologists for Global Justice (AGJ) see: http://www.shef.ac.uk/archaeology/global-justice.html "There is no way to peace. Peace IS the way".