 |
 |
Was that really censored? Why? 2009/3/20 Umberto Albarella <[log in to unmask]> > 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". > -- Sam Hardy, DPhil candidate, University of Sussex: "Interrogating archaeological ethics: Reconciling professional responsibilities with humanitarian duties"