Houston, We Have a Problem
This is a highly unusual situation, but in the interest of remaining transparent and open about our experiences we will address this publicly.
It has come to our attention that someone has begun a rumor about Citizen Wausau. The implication is that while we’re only in our second week of publication, we’re already on the censorship bandwagon. You can imagine why this is a headache.
Here’s the deal, we “rejected” one post. That person denied speaking to anyone other than us about it, but now we have an independent third party addressing us about it - and - our editor resigned.
“Why was the article rejected,” you ask? Good question.
The article technically wasn’t rejected. The article in question was three sentences, and two hyperlinks. They were great sentences, and cool links, but Dino asked the author to reconsider it (we can’t really control Dino by the way, he is totally running amok, we just throw Vegan Meatloaf at him once or twice a day, and hope he stops yelling…he yells a lot. We can’t tell if he just has a loud voice, or if he is angry.)
As our editorial policy states, “Personal voices expressing personal stories to readers in their community. You, talking to me, about what you have seen, what you want to see, and what you hope will come along.”
Dino asked the author to expound on their idea, not just post the few lines without connecting the reader to a valid emotion or idea. We all felt it was inappropriate to allow such a short post because it would set a precedent for others to feel it was alright to contribute what would slowly turn into a blog that was merely a bunch of links, of which there are already plenty.
The author chose to not pursue publishing the post. We went back, and Dino offered to amend an Editor’s note to explain the significance as to what was being posted, and why. He even went so far as to show the poster the Editor’s note in advance. The author made a choice.
For the record, we have a process where more than one person has to be involved in the approval or rejection of a post. With three founders, we think that we represent fairness the best way we can. Initially Dino reads all of it, and has initial discussions with posters, but after that he talks to Andy and I about everything on the site. We totally would not give the big loveable monkey too much rope with which to hang himself. We are in this together!
It led to some interesting discussions over the two days between the author and myself and Dino. The question of censorship, the question of what is and what is not an open forum. I tend to err on the side of trying to find inclusive paths. Dino, on the other hand, just wants the posts to be what we had envisioned…discussion. You can see from his posts he is fond of words, prosody, the brought forth idea (he worships Aaron Sorkin after all). At the same time, Dino is really Dino. A sort of acquired taste, a polarizing figure, a real rabble rouser. We’re not sure everyone is going to like him, as often we’re pretty sure that we don’t like him, but over the past few years his work in this sort of thing is pretty public and pretty successful. WNRB, his inciting the Wausaublog, and his bringing me the Citizen Wausau idea and yelling at me until I got it done.
So for all you new people we ask, if we can talk Dino into coming back, to understand that his is a different way. Not always loving and sensitive, but there is no one we would rather go to war with. Dino has proven to all of us, on more than one occasion that he would literally walk into traffic to defend us, to avenge us, to make sure that our ideas and projects are safe. We have watched Dino essentially put himself on the line for his principals and lose giant fights, and lose things he cares deeply about, but he was standing up for what he believed in, and would not really change (he’s practically a Dixie Chick in that way). Even if he has nothing at stake, he is more than willing to take a literal punch in the face, or a metaphorical boot to the side. We know that he is going to be that guy for you, because of his love for the project, and the idea of giving voice to you all.
So we’re sorry that the poster felt slighted. We never meant for it to happen. We have tried to remedy this situation, and we think by being open and honest about it with all of you, we are doing a better thing than by not being transparent. We want you to understand that the “rejection” of this post was an issue of quality(we wanted to expand your idea of the situation), not subject matter.
We’re not really sure about Dino, or his return. His feelings were really hurt by this incident, on a personal level. We heard that he went home, and rented a movie about Newfoundland, and got some Vegan food (seriously, how can a guy big like that be a vegetarian? It makes no sense) and sat in his chair. Other than that, we are hoping to hear from him, as we asked him to reconsider his resigning.
What do you think?
robertmentzer said:
I think Dino is a master of communication and a funny guy and Citizen Wausau would be better with him than without him. Come back, Dino!
But still you probably should have published the submitted short post. What’s the harm? Sharing links is a big part of internet conversation. Besides, the editorial policy you have posted doesn’t really say anything about length of posts.
October 12th, 2007 at 12:44 pm #
Tom Neal said:
Honest constructive criticism is not censorship. It’s what editors are supposed to do for the good of a collaborative journal. CW is a journal after all (albeit badly in need of spellchecker); it’s an interactive one to boot. So, feelings were hurt in the course of well-intentioned quality assurance efforts. Big deal. (Dino gave me grief on my beatnik article! Then said he loved it.) The ensuing brouhaha is embarrassing, yes … for the unnamed source who ill-advisedly claimed censorship. A clear explanation has been forwarded. Don’t worry about Dino; as you point out, he’s been through worse. He can’t stand to be long away from the fray.
October 12th, 2007 at 12:57 pm #
lisastahl said:
These blog things do tend to bring out a fair amount of criticism so your (vegan) skin best be thick. Dino, don’t throw in the towel yet. This too soon shall pass.
October 12th, 2007 at 1:07 pm #
Dino Corvino said:
Thanks for the support Andy and Marcus and the rest of you. Its true I can’t resist the fray for long, but I honestly feel pretty betrayed by what happened. Marcus and Andy have tried to console me (seriously, I am pretty upset…which for me is the stage following anger), but somehow I think that this was a tell tale event.
I worry that the ability to make ME a target, is going to take away from everything else.
In all honesty, I believe in the project completely. With everything in me; and to be targeted like this(thats how I see it anyway) puts this at risk. Target me, discredit the effort.
But thanks Lisa and Tom and Rob.
I am going to take the weekend. Marcus is at BarCamp, and I think Andy has a social life…so I don’t need to worry about them bothering me.
October 12th, 2007 at 2:08 pm #
Barry Liss said:
I envision this site as the premiere blog in Wisconsin for art, politics and culture. My sense: soon enough this site will have paying sponsors and there will be stipends available for authors, and salaries for editors. My advice: be patient, work toward the future and don’t turn your back on this rainbow.
Barry
October 12th, 2007 at 3:55 pm #
melissa said:
Having not seen the original post and having very little clue exactly how big the quality issue was, it’s a little hard to comment on what went down with Dino and this poster.
But whether Dino comes back or not, CitizenWausau should continue its quest for quality. Don’t be scared by any wingnuts throwing that too-often abused ‘censorship’ word around. I agree with Tom — this is what editors are supposed to do. When I visit CitizenWausau, I really don’t want to have to sift through 2 tons of crap to find a coherent post.
And to Dino I say, “Congrats!” You just pissed off one of your writers for the first time. You’re officially a good editor. Now get back to work.
October 13th, 2007 at 2:47 pm #
Andy Laub said:
Thanks for your comments guys. One of the things I’d like to point out is the (currently stagnant) “Of Interest” section on the homepage; a place for us to post links to other relevant sites and articles. In retrospect, that’s how link submissions should be handled, and how they will be handled in the future.
October 13th, 2007 at 7:17 pm #
DW said:
Am I in high school?
The fact that CW felt the need to air its dirty laundry within the first few weeks of existence leaves a soapy film at my fingertips. The lengthy soap opera defense wouldn’t take place in any “big town” blog, and begging your editor to come back drops down the “cool” level of this venue several notches. Andy seems to have the only air of professionalism and reasoning here. Dino should have known better–and suggested the same–rather than react in narcissistic retreat. I was excited about CW when I heard about it from friends and read about it in City Pages…but now that I’ve seen it in action, glimpsed CW’s underpants waving in cyberspace, I’m rather disappointed.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:23 pm #
tommichlig said:
Two points:
1. Regarding the rejected post: many “bloggers” are great at self-publishing, but not-so-hot at self-editing, based on what I’ve experienced. So I’ve always been partial to discussion boards such as CW that involve some form of light editorial filter. Keeps things relatively relevant to the mission of the blog. So on the surface, I don’t find Dino’s initial actions offensive (say what you will about the ensuing drama).
2. Regarding the drama, and the perceived need to make it public: DW has some good points among some strong opinions he “voiced” (worded? at any rate…) This all feels way too self involved, and it comes way too early in the life of the blog. I’m pulling for this blog to be great, so, seriously, guys, who cares? I don’t know DC from Adam, have never met him, and have no right to judge his character, but I don’t care what’s going on behind the curtain. Nor do I care about the idiosyncracies of the blog’s founders. As long as the content is relevant and lively, it doesn’t matter who the editorial trio or duo or whatever is. Let’s keep the blog relevant and not run the risk of “blogging about this blog”.
October 16th, 2007 at 8:16 pm #
Tom Neal said:
DW …
Welcome to the CW “blog” or whatever one might call it. Would you consider emerging from the safe anonymity of your “DW” handle to join this community of contributors as a peer? I ask this because yours might be the first post on CW I’ve read that edges toward the taking-potshots-from-a-camouflaged-blind school of debate. On this rather benign issue, you’ve sort of exploded on the scene, employing references to “high school” “dirty laundry” “soap opera” “narcissistic” “underpants waving in cyberspace” … pretty in-your-face for the meek, unassuming organizers of a fledgling online community journal. I don’t disagree with you that the censorship question might have been handled better, but hindsight is always golden and rubbing someone’s nose in their honest (and harmless) mistake is not particularly civil, is it? I think you (DW) might be a bit like me, prone to giving stern, fatherly (motherly?) advice to those I perceive as in need of a firm, guiding hand. Personally, this has often led to people thinking I’m a big, self-important jerk. I’ve been trying to work on that. Going forward, I hope you will openly contribute to CW with positive content, and yes, constructive criticism. But, my personal view is that it would be great to not make this yet another channel for persons anonymous to make proclamations or judgments. The CW staff may be likely to say, “Oh no, Tom, we don’t want to discourage anonymous posters.” And I respect and would support that policy. But I’m not talking policy here; I’m talking personal contribution to a community effort.
October 17th, 2007 at 7:37 am #
hello said:
I used to blog on Wausaudailyherald.com, but they permanently banned me for something I didn’t do. They said I used symbols in place of letters to bypass the profanity filters. Then, they claimed they sent me multiple e-mails warning me to stop. I never got these e-mails so they banned me. They also claimed that I went and broke the policy and re-registered under a different login while I was banned. They were reconsidering letting me back on - but after that - it was indefinite that I was to be banned. I was only a member for like a week, and only have ever had one log in. I think they’re crazy!
October 31st, 2007 at 2:47 pm #