De Minimis
  • Home
  • ABOUT US
  • Podcast
  • Your Learned Friend
  • Anonymous Feedback
  • Art
  • Get published!
  • Constitution
  • Archive
    • 2018
    • 2017
    • 2017 >
      • Semester 2 (Volume 12) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8 (election issue)
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
    • 2016 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 9) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
      • Semester 2 (Volume 10) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8 (Election Issue)
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
        • Issue 13 (test)
    • 2015 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 7) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
      • Semester 2 (Volume 8) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
    • 2014 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 5) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
      • Semester 2 (Volume 6) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 12
    • 2013 >
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
      • Issue 5
      • Issue 6
    • 2012 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 1) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
      • Semester 2 (Volume 2) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12

De Minimis 2018: a year in the rearview

16/10/2018

 
Sem 2 wk 12

Duncan Willis

For as long as De Minimis has existed, it has been associated with outrage. As Jimi Muirhead noted a few weeks back, outrage can be a catalyst for positive change, yet outrage, especially when unleashed in the comments section with the benefit of anonymity can be hurtful. From everything that previous editors have told me, as well as what I have seen in the past two years on the committee as Online Editor and then Editor in Chief, finding the balance between legitimate criticism and ‘objectionable’ content is one that is not easy and one that few editors (including our team this year) can claim to have got right.
Picture
This year we published multiple articles, knowing that they would upset faculty members or other students. While causing harm was not the goal of these articles, it would be a necessary consequence of both the articles and the comments it would receive. So, why then did we publish?

Above all, De Minimis is a forum for students. We exist as a voice for students, to shed light on important issues facing the student body, and aim to produce well-written content. Our student focus is reflected in our constitution, which requires us to publish everything we receive, unless it’s defamatory, discriminatory or otherwise unlawful. While our internal standards constrain us primarily by reference to defamation, we are externally held to account to a similar but somewhat more subjective standard by the MLS community, one classed more broadly by staff and students as ‘objectionable’. The policy gap between these standards is the space in which we have operated, especially with respect to more controversial articles.

This gap largely manifests in our editorial position on publishing articles and comments. Both are treated uniformly and constrained by reference to our constitutional requirements. In other words, we publish everything. Part of being a viable outlet for students to publish their content means we need to remain impartial. The 2018 De Minimis team had rather uniform political views, but believed that promotion of these over other voices would damage the paper in the long run. We can’t truly be an outlet for students if we refused to publish articles we didn’t agree with, or that would cause controversy. While I do not believe in unrestrained free speech, I do believe that is better to have students’ views in the open, where they can be challenged and known, rather than simmering beneath the surface. To publish also gives us the opportunity to temper or constrain an article through our editing processes.

When we have refused to publish an article, we are criticised for denying a right of reply or the opportunity to contribute to ongoing debate. Often the work will be published anyway, without the constraints of our editing process. When we do publish an article, we open ourselves up to criticism with regard to our position in allowing most comments (including anonymous ones) to be published on the site. To publish everything is a double-edged sword, and sometimes our editorial team is caught in the middle. Nevertheless, we have had difficulty managing these issues this year, and haven’t always done it as well as we could. But one of the benefits arising from these episodes is that we have developed better processes for dealing with student misconduct and issues that raise the ire of faculty (still in the works).

There are regrets I have from my time at De Minimis - in particular, these relate to the controversial articles that have unleashed demons in the comment section. I regret that we didn’t moderate comments quick enough, and on occasion we weren’t as interventionist as we should have been. I also regret that we haven’t been able to address our ongoing inability to identify commenters, such that we have had issues with impersonation and of course anonymous keyboard warriors. Finally, I regret not drafting processes for dealing with these issues earlier in the year, such that we haven’t ever used them. Yet all things aside, the controversial articles we published had a positive impact that outweighed their negatives. For every objectionable or poorly written article, there have been clear, well-argued responses that stand up to criticism. For every controversial comment, there are many others being complimentary of the writer, or disagreeing respectfully. I am proud of our readers and writers who have thoughtfully participated in the life of De Minimis, and most of all, I am proud of the content that our team has produced. While I do have regrets from my time at De Minimis, I don’t regret publishing any article of the 100+ that we have put out this year.

I am very grateful to the 2018 editorial team for their hard work on this paper and am especially thankful to Janelle Koh for her support throughout the year and suggestions on this article.
Tilly
16/10/2018 07:46:51 pm

As a writer, commenter, and student, I thank you for your reflection on the work done by De Minimis this year. I can't claim to have always appreciated the results, but I do recognise the hard work that you have all put in - especially knowing how valuable our time is.

It's been a year, De Min. Cheers.

Duncan
16/10/2018 09:23:07 pm

Thanks Tilly, this year has had its ups and downs, but we can all agree that it has definitely been a year.

Jimi
16/10/2018 08:02:06 pm

I should probably take this opportunity, given its mention, to clarify a point made by article the other week. (There were some misunderstandings expressed to me in the past few weeks that I was hurt by.) While I am all for some outrage in De Minimis, I believe this should not come at the expense of civil public discourse.

Although I support anonymous comments in principle, the way they've been used this year is very disappointing. I agree with Gus' suggestion that any anonymous comment must have a verified @unimelb.student.edu.au e-mail attached, so that crossing certain lines can have these trolls banned.

I enjoy this humble reflection by Duncan, and hope the incoming DM team remain vigilant of not only the potential for positive change, but also the potential to upset or vilify members of our cohort.

Geordie Wilson (Online Editor)
16/10/2018 08:25:05 pm

Hey Jimi, thanks for your comment.

Unfortunately Gus' suggestion wouldn't solve anything. People's unimelb addresses are easy to guess, and the person impersonating another can just put in that other person's email.

The only solution would be to move DeMinimis off Weebly, and create a system where accounts could be created in order to comment on the DeMin site; with verification.

Unfortunately, DeMin lacks the time and the skill to create an original site like this. Perhaps if the LSS was willing to foot the bill to pay for a new site to be constructed, we could get a solution looking something like Gus' implemented. In the meantime, the current system is the best that we can do.

I appreciate that being impersonated is distressing, and encourage anyone who notices that they have been impersonated to contact the DeMin team to have the comments immediately removed; we have made sure to do that this year.

The real Geordie Wilson (Online Editor)
16/10/2018 08:26:54 pm

Follow-up comment just to verify that the above was indeed written by me.

Jimi
16/10/2018 08:42:06 pm

You misunderstood/I wasn't clear enough. To comment (either anonymously or not) you have to sign up with a unimelb email. You then have to verify you are the owner of that e-mail by going to your inbox and clicking some link. Dno how easy that is to do on Weebly, but wouldn't be too hard to set up I imagine. There's countless examples of it across many platforms.

Re: The LSS, I wouldn't be surprised if that was something it would be more than happy to fund. I thought it'd be your mob who'd be more hesitant to receive LSS funding. We can chat about that aspect another time. It ain't my komite anymore.

Geordie
16/10/2018 09:10:52 pm

I do understand what you mean. As far as I can see after having looked into it, it's impossible to do on Weebly. We'd need to rebuild the site & include an account system.

There's examples of it among many platforms, but they are organisations that have built their own sites from scratch on wordpress. Weebly is a template based site. To build a new site from scratch would take too much techical skill for the current DM team; or a bunch of money that we don't have.

Re: an LSS grant to build a new DeMin website; it'd be welcome for sure. Unsure why there'd be a perception that DeMin would be averse to taking money from anyone.

Duncan
16/10/2018 09:21:59 pm

Thanks Jimi.

First of all apologies, I didn't intend to suggest that you were in favour of offensive articles and I'm sorry if it read that way.

As for the anonymity- I tend to agree that we need to figure out a way of identifying people who comment - not only for impersonation but to prevent repeat trolls. I would be reluctant to use an @student... email, because we have had good contributions from ex students previously.

While this may require a new platform, I would disagree with Geordie and be reluctant to take LSS money. I think we should be as independent as possible. Yet as you say- these are no longer our problem.

I am very confident that the new team will be vigilant and strike the right balance between outrage and respect.

Former editor
25/10/2018 10:29:28 pm

Also if you do build a new site (with an account login for commenters) you would want to be able to take all the archives with you.


Comments are closed.
    Picture

    Archives

    December 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014

  • Home
  • ABOUT US
  • Podcast
  • Your Learned Friend
  • Anonymous Feedback
  • Art
  • Get published!
  • Constitution
  • Archive
    • 2018
    • 2017
    • 2017 >
      • Semester 2 (Volume 12) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8 (election issue)
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
    • 2016 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 9) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
      • Semester 2 (Volume 10) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8 (Election Issue)
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
        • Issue 13 (test)
    • 2015 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 7) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
      • Semester 2 (Volume 8) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
    • 2014 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 5) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
      • Semester 2 (Volume 6) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 12
    • 2013 >
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
      • Issue 5
      • Issue 6
    • 2012 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 1) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
      • Semester 2 (Volume 2) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12