This page is designed around the general premise that communities would be benefited by larger activist organizations who provide them both usable information and respond to inquiries. As we stated earlier it is a tight rope walk of sorts since some off these experts, or other heroes, in working on the issues in question are seemingly poor targets of criticism Yet if we are to set aside the legacy questions and simply ask questions in regard to reasonable objective standards both in terms
The space they claim to represent- Lets just say its possible that a well known group with lots of accomplishments and a healthy roster of respected efforts may proclaim they are the go to group. Yet when it comes to actually information on a website for instance the group may be sadly deficient So what is partly being alluded to here is who they claim they are and what they claim to be offering the public. If they are mission is to lobby government and private industry and really have little interest in making information variable to the public then that is OK, or at least it should be recognized in ways of evaluating the groups. However if groups who have no interest in public discourse still claim they are all things to all people interested on a given issue then maybe that is not OK in certain ways
On line profiles with contact numbers of the members of the organization is always a nice touch. The general issues of transparency and the creation of significant public data and analysis are broader than we can list ere
Lingering hierarchical attitudes
Profit or pay motives which may be unconscious
In a sense they are the valve for all the frustrations to flow outward which explains some of the tensions
Possibility of a green wash conspiracy
Are they willing to work on a construct of what respectable standards in regard to grassroots organizing should look like
To criticize them is to be a negative person
These groups in theory should represent the kind of new structures we want
Copyright issues are also likely to be an issue with many of these groups, so taking a look at the sub menu would be helpful
Can we find examples of groups with meaningful input of a large swath of the membership
Social hierarchies, gatekeepers, territoriality, and passivity-
Balance between organizational safeguarding and gate-keeping
Very large group's seem to have little input from membership
Most groups don't provide avenues for large amount of members to participate
Only very small amount of members participate when given the chance
Is passivity a problem? Is it structural?
The space they claim to represent- Lets just say its possible that a well known group with lots of accomplishments and a healthy roster of respected efforts may proclaim they are the go to group. Yet when it comes to actually information on a website for instance the group may be sadly deficient So what is partly being alluded to here is who they claim they are and what they claim to be offering the public. If they are mission is to lobby government and private industry and really have little interest in making information variable to the public then that is OK, or at least it should be recognized in ways of evaluating the groups. However if groups who have no interest in public discourse still claim they are all things to all people interested on a given issue then maybe that is not OK in certain ways
On line profiles with contact numbers of the members of the organization is always a nice touch. The general issues of transparency and the creation of significant public data and analysis are broader than we can list ere
Lingering hierarchical attitudes
Profit or pay motives which may be unconscious
In a sense they are the valve for all the frustrations to flow outward which explains some of the tensions
Possibility of a green wash conspiracy
Are they willing to work on a construct of what respectable standards in regard to grassroots organizing should look like
To criticize them is to be a negative person
These groups in theory should represent the kind of new structures we want
Copyright issues are also likely to be an issue with many of these groups, so taking a look at the sub menu would be helpful
Can we find examples of groups with meaningful input of a large swath of the membership
Social hierarchies, gatekeepers, territoriality, and passivity-
Balance between organizational safeguarding and gate-keeping
Very large group's seem to have little input from membership
Most groups don't provide avenues for large amount of members to participate
Only very small amount of members participate when given the chance
Is passivity a problem? Is it structural?