Guidelines for Posting Articles

28 posts / 0 new
Last post
daniel's picture
daniel
Offline
Joined: 8-04-06
Jun 9 2007 16:18
Guidelines for Posting Articles

Are there any guidelines for posting articles? I've been putting quite a lot of effort into finding interesting stuff to put up on the libcom library and it'd be a right bummer if my work was for fuck all. In the past a few of the articles I've submitted have not been approved. Could I get some kind of basic guidelines about article posting?

And if an article is not to your liking, do you think you could very briefly PM something short - "no go on article. reactionary content. historical innacuracies." something like that. that'd be ace.

-cheers

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Jun 9 2007 16:24

if none of the other admins get the chance before monday i'll check/approve your articles then from work as i'm not on much at the weekend. shout at me if i forget wink

content guidelines here (found via the 'notes' menu option at the top of the page)

daniel's picture
daniel
Offline
Joined: 8-04-06
Jun 9 2007 17:55

Yes, but I didn't mean technical guidelines I meant like what material you do or do not want. for instance, what criteria makes you accept or decline an article apart from formating, etc. For instance, you told me why you didn't want that piece about the Israeli "art student"/"movers" covert ops.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Jun 9 2007 18:19

oh sorry, thought we had that but it's only for news articles atm ... i'm not sure off the top of my head tbh. admins?

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Jun 9 2007 18:27

Daniel, the style guide touches on it a bit: http://libcom.org/notes/style-guide but yeah we could probably fix that up a bit. News is the only one where we've actually got anything concrete in terms of what should go in or not with examples etc. Having said that, it's much harder to have concrete guidelines about the history and library sections, and they're all different from each other in terms of focus.

I'd say the militias article is a bit too long for history at 4,500 words - those articles should generally be under 2,000 words, also for history, although I only scanned it, the references to the media etc. look superfluous. That'd mean either cutting it down or moving it to library.

Most things you've added looks really interesting though, echanges on Iraq and the Bay View Massacre etc. I don't have much time for reading things, let alone reviewing anything at the moment, and a few of us are short of net access as well, which means things are taking longer to happen - hopefully this'll ease up in the next couple of weeks to a month.

fwiw there's now a list of all library articles you've submitted at http://libcom.org/users/daniel/library - if you change the content type (news, history) at the end you can track stuff in those categories as well.

daniel's picture
daniel
Offline
Joined: 8-04-06
Jun 9 2007 20:38

can you move the militia article from history to library then? i think it's important and should be on libcom somewhere.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Jun 11 2007 13:43

daniel, i'm going through the moderation queue now. i'm not approving the Alexander Cockburn climate change one because it's based on sketchy polemical science (i'm no scientist, and nor is cockburn, but for example his claim of one-way causation for temperature -> C02 contradicts observed physics which shows the relation is bi-directional). i mean carbon trading is a load of shit, but not because there's no anthropogenic climate change. i've approved the others except the militias one discussed above

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jun 11 2007 14:39

yeah daniel we really appreciate all the articles. The only one not approved was the Israeli one, which as you said featured heavily in the mainstream media already. And it hinted at "9-11 was an inside job" esque conspiracies, which we don't want to be associated.

I just had a look at the climate change piece, it's interesting but it's arguing that man made climate change isn't real, and this is a dangerous argument, which goes against current scientific consensus (outside the most reactionary parts of the oil industry anyway).

Like Joseph says, carbon trading is shit, but because it's not effective at fighting climate change, not because climate change isn't real

daniel's picture
daniel
Offline
Joined: 8-04-06
Jun 12 2007 04:22

thanks. I dunno, i still think some hard questions need to be asked about global warming, uhem, and 9/11. I believe, obviously, that we are faced with ecological problems and I do not believe "9/11 was an inside job", at least directly. There are still things to be discussed.

Keep your minds open but don't let yr brains fall out, as they so wisely say.

daniel's picture
daniel
Offline
Joined: 8-04-06
Jun 12 2007 04:29

oh by the way - I think you should put up the article about MOVE and the article about the militia movement. The first cos it's important, the second cos its important, relevant and apparently ignored by lefties, liberals and even anarchists. It seems like quite an important trend in modern day America, certainly more important than the anarchist so-called movement as it now stands (slumps).

-cheers

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Jun 12 2007 20:53

Daniel,

Past couple of articles:
http://libcom.org/history/1941-renewal-medieval-times-yugoslavia - it's a primary source so should go in library, not history. Also I know nothing about these events, any more info?

http://libcom.org/history/1983-leave-slave-driving-us-chris-fillmer - looks good for history to me, except title should probably be: 1983 GreyHound BusLines employees strike. Will wait for John since he's history king.

http://libcom.org/library/every-nation-state-imperialist-nature-tom-wetzel - all fine, tags were good as well. We only have two articles in third-worldism, so that should maybe be combined with national liberation rather than seperate tag (waits for a 1,000 page thread on this suggestion).

Also since you asked, we started drawing up some guidelines for library/history. These aren't finished but I may as well post them here - let me know if you reckon they help or make things more confusing...

Quote:
the libcom library is primarily an archive, so our main purpose is preserving articles and pamphlets from the past and make them easier to find for new readers. Although we have content written as recently as a month ago, since so many articles are written each year and published on the internet, many of low quality and about the same things, we've tried to create these guidelines to prevent massive duplication of content and save time in submission and rejection of articles we're not interested in.

These guidelines apply especially to anything written in the past couple of years, but can equally be applied to any submission. However, our inclusion criteria is quite wide, so if you're not sure, please post in the ##feedback forum## to ask.

We're mainly interested in articles that meet one of the following criteria:

1. written by an author or group already represented in the library
2.about a historical event already covered in the library or history
3. about a subject (revolutions, strikes) that we have a large collection of already. (list needs to be longer, plus link to tag cloud)

If the answer to any of those is yes, then it's likely to be accepted since it'll expand the existing content we have.

There also things we're not interested in:
1. conspiracy theory - there are loads of sites around publicising and promoting consipiracy theories (and debunking them), we aren't one.
2. unresearched claims. If you find an article that makes statistical or historical claims but doesn't back them up with references, please add them yourself, or try to find a better researched article. Obviously primary sources, polemic, or documents which are part of correspondence and discussion often don't include references due to assumed knowledge for their intended audience at the time, but they can still be footnoted or introduced now to put them into context for current readers. Even a couple of sentences can help.

MJ's picture
MJ
Offline
Joined: 5-01-06
Jun 12 2007 21:00
daniel wrote:
It seems like quite an important trend in modern day America, certainly more important than the anarchist so-called movement as it now stands (slumps).

The "militia movement" peaked in the 90s, as did anarchist interest in it (of good and bad sorts).

daniel's picture
daniel
Offline
Joined: 8-04-06
Jun 12 2007 22:27

I believe not. Apparently its been picking up in recent years ever since the PATRIOT Act.

Randy
Offline
Joined: 31-01-07
Jun 12 2007 23:08
MJ wrote:
...
The "militia movement" peaked in the 90s, as did anarchist interest in it (of good and bad sorts).

Now if we just had an emoticon with a bottle of Jim Beam in one hand, and a 12 gauge in the other...

Randy
Offline
Joined: 31-01-07
Jun 12 2007 23:19

I've never posted an image before

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jun 13 2007 12:16

yeah daniel thanks we do appreciate these articles, we're not trying to be picky or arsey!

Mike Harman wrote:
Daniel,

Past couple of articles:
http://libcom.org/history/1941-renewal-medieval-times-yugoslavia - it's a primary source so should go in library, not history.

yup

Quote:
http://libcom.org/history/1983-leave-slave-driving-us-chris-fillmer - looks good for history to me, except title should probably be: 1983 GreyHound BusLines employees strike. Will wait for John since he's history king.

Yeah that's right on the title - history articles should all have descriptive titles. We should make that clear in guidelines.

Also it breaks the style guide on emotive language and opinion "The union piecards then pleaded for binding arbitration -- anythmg to avoid a strike!" "crummy contract" etc. so as is it'd be better suited for the library, though a bit of editing and removing the analysis at the end it would be ok for history.

Quote:
http://libcom.org/library/every-nation-state-imperialist-nature-tom-wetzel - all fine, tags were good as well. We only have two articles in third-worldism, so that should maybe be combined with national liberation rather than seperate tag (waits for a 1,000 page thread on this suggestion).

yep great, and catch yeah nat lib tag on its own is best.

also daniel apols but in copying your MOVE piece to library it was accidentally deleted - could you resubmit it, to the library?

the other things, copying over to library, etc. we will try to do when we have time, although of course you would be welcome to re-submit them to the different sections.

daniel's picture
daniel
Offline
Joined: 8-04-06
Jun 15 2007 02:32
Mike Harman wrote:
Daniel,

Past couple of articles:
http://libcom.org/history/1941-renewal-medieval-times-yugoslavia - it's a primary source so should go in library, not history. Also I know nothing about these events, any more info?

http://libcom.org/history/1983-leave-slave-driving-us-chris-fillmer - looks good for history to me, except title should probably be: 1983 GreyHound BusLines employees strike. Will wait for John since he's history king.

http://libcom.org/library/every-nation-state-imperialist-nature-tom-wetzel - all fine, tags were good as well. We only have two articles in third-worldism, so that should maybe be combined with national liberation rather than seperate tag (waits for a 1,000 page thread on this suggestion).

Also since you asked, we started drawing up some guidelines for library/history. These aren't finished but I may as well post them here - let me know if you reckon they help or make things more confusing...

Quote:
the libcom library is primarily an archive, so our main purpose is preserving articles and pamphlets from the past and make them easier to find for new readers. Although we have content written as recently as a month ago, since so many articles are written each year and published on the internet, many of low quality and about the same things, we've tried to create these guidelines to prevent massive duplication of content and save time in submission and rejection of articles we're not interested in.

These guidelines apply especially to anything written in the past couple of years, but can equally be applied to any submission. However, our inclusion criteria is quite wide, so if you're not sure, please post in the ##feedback forum## to ask.

We're mainly interested in articles that meet one of the following criteria:

1. written by an author or group already represented in the library
2.about a historical event already covered in the library or history
3. about a subject (revolutions, strikes) that we have a large collection of already. (list needs to be longer, plus link to tag cloud)

If the answer to any of those is yes, then it's likely to be accepted since it'll expand the existing content we have.

There also things we're not interested in:
1. conspiracy theory - there are loads of sites around publicising and promoting consipiracy theories (and debunking them), we aren't one.
2. unresearched claims. If you find an article that makes statistical or historical claims but doesn't back them up with references, please add them yourself, or try to find a better researched article. Obviously primary sources, polemic, or documents which are part of correspondence and discussion often don't include references due to assumed knowledge for their intended audience at the time, but they can still be footnoted or introduced now to put them into context for current readers. Even a couple of sentences can help.

Thats grand. One question tho - how do you define "conspiracy theory"? Off the wall looniness or theories of conspiracy? I mean, you've got a number of articles about the "strategy of tension" in Italy - a theory of conspiracy, eh. surprised

Will re-submit MOVE article. Do whatever you like w/ the Grehound Bus one, I'm not bothered.

-cheers

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Jun 15 2007 07:15

One other thing about history - something like the Greyhound article which is really good, but doesn't fit style guide for history - what we've done in the past is put a cut-down one (with acronyms explained etc. etc.) in history, and then had the original in library with a link to it from the history article. Not that you need to do this, but it's another option. Don't worry, we'll get to it.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Jun 15 2007 07:46

i would imagine 'conspiracy theory' as in unsubstantiated speculation as opposed to accounts of documented conspiracies like the strategy of tension.

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Jun 15 2007 08:24
Joseph K. wrote:
i would imagine 'conspiracy theory' as in unsubstantiated speculation as opposed to accounts of documented conspiracies like the strategy of tension.
Quote:
1. Open up a blank Word document.

2. Type in Q33 NY in capitals (this is the flight number of the 1st plane to hit the WTC)

3. Highlight it.

4. Change the font size to 48.

5. Change the actual font to wingdings

proof.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Jun 15 2007 08:32

i'm convinced. well, i would be if Q33 NY was actually the designation of a flight that day wink

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Jun 15 2007 08:44
Joseph K. wrote:
i'm convinced. well, i would be if Q33 NY was actually the designation of a flight that day ;)

You accept the evidence and then you just try to wriggle your way out of it.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Jun 17 2007 09:41

organizer:

organise is for howtos and similar, not for articles about actual events, that's why we have the news, history and library sections.

http://libcom.org/organise/chicago-public-schools-lunch-ladies-fight-back
This could go in news but it'd need to be edited/rewritten for copyright (at least minimal).

http://libcom.org/organise/congress-hotel-strikes-1461-days
can't you just post it as a forum topic?

daniel, I put the Greyhound article and a couple of others in library, thanks!

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jun 19 2007 11:37

we should take organise off public submissions...

Terry
Offline
Joined: 1-02-06
Jun 19 2007 12:02

There is a response to the Cockburn article here: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=57&ItemID=12895

and here: http://www.zmag.org/debatesglobalwarming.html

I like the first one. It has a go at 'contrarian' journalists (and 'The Rebel Sell')...which I loathe.

daniel's picture
daniel
Offline
Joined: 8-04-06
Jun 21 2007 19:57

Whatever. I know essentially no science and have pretty much no basis for evaluating the truth of different complex scientific theories. That's a problem wink Mr Cockburn's article seemed to make some sense to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we coming to the end of an ice age. That'd mean the earth's getting hotter NATURALLY and human activities may have little or no effect on the climte change going on around us. We just need to technically fix this problem, because rising sea levels, increased heat, etc. are a problem. In other words, we need to interfere with NATURAL climate change. I think the problem with the "global warming as human evil-doing" theory is that it puts the blame at the feet of us, instead of the environment, so we futily try to stop the problem by changing ourselves rather than technically changing the environment.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Jun 21 2007 20:03
Quote:
we futily try to stop the problem by changing ourselves rather than technically changing the environment.

To prevent any kind of ecological catastrophe it will be necessary to interfere with the environment technically - this does mean changing our own housing and transport infrastructure (and food etc.) - which are a part of that environment, as well as interventions in the 'natural' world. Things have already changed significantly due to human intervention, and we're a part of nature, not seperate from it - so can't simply be removed from the equation.

Having said that, there is plenty of evidence that climate change is human influenced, and theories which tend to go against that are often very much tied into interests opposed to any changes in the economy whatsoever. That wouldn't invalidate serious independent research into climate change, but either way there are good reasons to change living patterns (like communism, duh) which in themselves have benefits regardless of whether it stops global warming.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jun 27 2007 13:26
Mike Harman wrote:
Quote:
we futily try to stop the problem by changing ourselves rather than technically changing the environment.

Having said that, there is plenty of evidence that climate change is human influenced, and theories which tend to go against that are often very much tied into interests opposed to any changes in the economy whatsoever.

Yep. There's also some very bad science in that article, like this:

Quote:
The two lines on that graph proclaim that a whopping 30 per cent cut in man-made CO2 emissions didn't even cause a 1 ppm drop in the atmosphere's CO2. Thus it is impossible to assert that the increase in atmospheric CO2 stems from human burning of fossil fuels.

I mean that's just stupid. I could stand somewhere pissing in a swimming pool. I could slow the rate with which I pissed in the pool by 30%, but the amount of piss in the pool would keep going up. Yet he claims that fact is "devastating" to human climate change theory.