STOCK feedback

Thanks for initiating this discussion - it is really healthy and necessary, especially in the early stages while stock is still trying to develop it's flavour. The editorial team readily admits we are not exactly the most internet-savvy bunch around so we look forward to working together with you guys to shape and change the website over time to make it better. Nothing about the way stock currently looks and works is necessarily cast in concrete.

So in that spirit, I'd like to share with you some of the factors the stock editorial team are grappling with that influence our decision to monitor and approve all contributed content at this time.

1. Anyone in the world can sign-up to become a registered user of this site and once they are registered they can immediately submit content: At present we have around 16 legitimate stock members - and several very suspicious looking ones including one 'ZPoTEhIyYwXyx' and 'pEtAPgNzYENQB'. We seem to get a couple of these dodgy registrations each night and though we are dealing with them individually, having the 'approval queue' for all content is a safety mechanism protecting your end of the site getting completely filled with junk (you may be interested to know the site did suffer such a fate once during the development phase).

2. Offensive & irrelevant content: Okay, so this is always the difficult issue with any democratic forum for critical debate. We have some very simple guidelines that can be viewed here that are not so much about what can and can't be discussed, but about the attitude in which we ask contributors to participate. This is what directs the editorial team's decision to publish or not publish content. We feel it is absolutely essential to maintain a standard of dialogue that is informed, constructive and relevant to contemporary art practice in this place. Furthermore, stock carries the Contemporary Art Services Tasmania moniker and therefore that organisation is ultimately accountable to some extent for what appears online.

3. Editor's time: As Craig Judd discussed in his speech at the launch last week these kinds of ‘user-generated' sites are unavoidably time-consuming to administer. Whether you are vetting comments or simply moderating the discussions, it's pretty much a daily (if not hourly!) task. I contest that dealing with an inappropriate use of the forum after the fact is potentially a far more complicated and time-consuming task than our current practice of manually publishing contributions steadily and regularly.

4. The founding inspiration for stock was to provide local artists and writers an opportunity to write...and write well: So many artists out there write beautifully and compellingly about what they do and the ideas that concern them. Yet so often the only times they do so is in order to satisfy the requirements of a university degree, writing a grant or composing an occasional statement for an exhibition. While the ‘discussions' section of stock is certainly a more casual forum than ‘articles' it was nevertheless hoped that the site would abound with inspiring, quality writing. With a light touch (the odd bit of grammar, structure, spelling corrections etc.) the friendly editorial team hopes to help make writing well an easier and more rewarding process for artists and others.

I'd like to end with a little story: Recently a local artist approached me to talk about stock. English is not their first language. They are intelligent, passionate and opinionated when it comes to art in Tasmania. They said they were really excited to know the editorial team was there because that support gave them confidence to express themselves in writing publicly. I reckon there are many other artists (whether or not English is their native tongue) who lack a bit of confidence in their writing abilities who might feel the same way...

Yes, I agree these editorial steps are entirely appropriate for articles and the comments and feedback that relate directly to them.

My suggestion refers only to the discussion section here, which I imagined would be a more conversational, idea-generating venue than the article submission area.

However maybe it's just a different system that I need to get used to.

Am afraid i have to agree with sallyr on the whole discussion editorial point. As far as articles go - yes, edit away, that's important. As far as the discussion goes, I think you are better to check in regularly and delete any weirdness (which you may find isn't too bad) rather than edit every comment.
I also spend a fair bit of time mooching around on the web and I think there is something pretty satisfying about 'talking' via this discussion interface with other members... and the nature of conversation is that the more immediate the better... otherwise you get bored and don't go back.... and just remember that there are a lot of us who have this kind of time - for mooching and thinking and participating in forms - late at night.... and I don't imagine there is some enthusiastic editor just waiting at midnight to edit our comments....
The spirit of these kinds of things is that members also take responsibility for reporting things... and that system works well, as you have many eyes checking for freaks, rather than just your editing team...
And yes, I take the point about the non- english speaking part... i think that's important for articles, but completely unimportant for discussion as its easy to get the hang of what someone is saying, irrespective of the grammar.
I think we need to allow this to be as open as possible, to really gain the benefit of the interface.

Ooh agreed.
Anyone checked out The Dwarf?
(online music forum) It may be considered somewhat unruly but never stagnates - Perhaps Stock can attach itself a separate forum area. Oh for a forum where I can italicise all the important bits.
I wager that discussion and debate would propel itself faster and with more enthusiasm if there wasn't a process of editorial approval, (an oddly controlling/ed process of defining what is conversationally relevant to expose to this motley grouping).
The online community will police itself. It does everywhere else. Nobody appreciates people who waste time on these things, and chances are - only people who are genuinely interested will actually contribute anyway. And yes, a bit of stoushing has never hurt anyone. The occasional moronic/obscene statement? well - perhaps it will be reassuring that this is not some sort of eugenics experiment for the development of consistent and agreeable thinking (Let us only critique in the manner according to...)

In response to this discussion, editorial approval on comments has been removed for a trial period .... enjoy! Also, a basic formatting palette, providing options for italics, highlighting and adding hyper-links, will be added shortly.

Thanks editorial team.

It means a great deal to the future of this nifty facility you've begat for it's users to know it can respond to the way we would like to utilise it.

 Hooray for you. 

congratulations guys... i like an editorial team that responds to feedback so quickly... it can only make the site better.