When the Global Hits the Local

I’ve followed with interest the postings on the Wakefield News email list over the past few weeks on the issue of what should be allowed on this supposedly “uncensored” discussion list. It’s a discussion about discussions, and it has been a brush fire that refuses to die down, even when many people on the list are pleading, for the love of god, to please move on.

But I’m a bit of a policy wonk, and this is pure, unadulterated policy, in all it’s local, rubber-hits-the-road glory. I can’t look away.

For those of you who are subscribed to this compendium of all things Wakefield and environs, and are perhaps all too familiar with the debate that has been simmering away there lately, you can scroll down to the heading for my conclusion. For those not in the know, here’s a brief backgrounder:

The Wakefield and Outaouais News, as it is officially called, is a Groups.io email list that goes out to about 950 locals every day. It is usually made up of posts about lost dogs, requests for advice, yoga classes, and stuff for sale. I lean on it to get the word out about our farm or the Wakefield Market.

But, this being Wakefield, it frequently moves beyond such prosaic matters, with local authors posting their work, or, literally, poetry. I fall into this category, too, with links to stuff I post on this website, or my new project, Farmer’s Table.

People have also always posted the odd link to a petition or protest or news article that didn’t pertain strictly to the definition of this list as a “community bulletin board for information about the Outaouais” (my italics added). This was tolerated because it was of limited volume and not too controversial given the politics of most people on the list.

But with the violence in Israel and Gaza dominating the news since October 7, both the volume and the controversy of these sorts of postings increased.

The fuel was laid, and, when someone questioned the one-sidedness of these posts, the match was lit.

In most communities, I’d venture, this would have quickly devolved into the sort of online shouting match we have grown all too accustomed to. But a few respectful comments were posted in reply, and the original poster thanked the respondents. That could have been the end of it.

But then Phil Cohen, beloved “village poet (now emeritus)” and creator of this list some 20 (?) years ago, in a post entitled “Misuse of the Wakefield News”, offered his judgement in two cutting sentences, which I’ll quote in full here:

“When I invented the Wakefield News I intended that it be a vehicle for making Wakefield a stronger community based on love. I did not intend that it become a vehicle for stoking the flames of anti-Semitic hatred.”

Mic drop.

A gallon of gasoline had now been dumped on this nascent fire, and we were off.

Dozens of posts followed, examining from every angle the righteousness of free speech versus the desire to not sow division on a list that was supposed to bring people together. Many people offered potential compromises, such as creating a new list just for political discussion, but no one seemed willing to actually implement any of these suggestions. John Kingsley posted in methodically laid out arguments why this list should only be used for its intended purpose, while Kimberley Mansfield summed up the other end of the spectrum with these words: “I categorically refuse to be told what I can and cannot talk about, say, or discuss!”

I enjoyed and appreciated both sides of this irrepressible Wakefield spirit. One poster said he was “heartbroken” over what Wakefield has become, and that he wanted to sell his house and get the heck out of town. To him I say, “I’m sorry you feel that way, but I love it!”

The admins, who were often thanked for their volunteer work, stayed mostly silent and, as far as I know, didn’t exercise their power to kick anyone off the list (although at least one person did unsubscribe in protest). The discussion about the rules for this list was quintessentially local, after all – although they never gave any indication that the rules actually were up for discussion. They neither enforced nor altered the rules, and us policy wonks yammered on for days, much to the annoyance of those who just wanted to find out what was happening in their community.

I found myself being swayed back and forth by the good arguments being put forward by both sides. I also sympathized with those who simply wanted us all to just shut up already.

Alright, background done. Here’s the conclusion I’ve come to.

And then yesterday, right about the time this discussion seemed to have finally run its course, some clarity descended from on high (or somewhere) and settled the two warring factions inside my soul. Here’s how I hold two things to be true at the same time:

1) The Wakefield and Outaouais News was created as a community bulletin board by and for local people to spread the word about local goings-on. Any mission creep into non-local topics, particularly controversial ones, waters down this original mission and ultimately takes away from its intended purpose. I assume that most people have subscribed to this list to be served by this purpose. It’s for this reason that I think I have always tried to stick to this purpose in my postings. Even when I post something about a non-local topic, as I do often on this seanbutler.ca site, my rationale is that I am a local writer – so posting on a email list for local stuff might stretch the rules somewhat, but not break them. I hope I haven’t annoyed anyone by doing so; I’ve never had any complaints.

2) I don’t actually care what people post on the Wakefield News. Post about your strongly held belief that Elvis is alive and living in a cabin in Ladysmith for all I care! The reason for this is simple: it’s ridiculously easy, given the table of contents at the beginning of each digest email, to skim through the topics and just pick the ones I’m interested in. I’m never interested in all of them. In fact, I’m rarely interested in more than one or two of them. Not in the market for a used car? Skip! Not interested in square dancing? Pass! Don’t care to read about world politics on this list? Swipe left!

As I’ve said, I’m actually way more interested in the global politics type posts, but I totally respect people not being into that. We all skip stuff we’re not interested in in the Wakefield News – is it any harder to skip the political stuff, if that’s not your jam, than to skip an ad for a puppy, if you’re not looking for a puppy?

Could it be that simple? Am I missing something? It seems to me that being unwilling to skip stuff you’re not interested in and demanding that it never be posted in the first place is unreasonably censorious, no?

The one bit of housekeeping I would suggest, to make this whole approach smoother, is to clearly state what your post is about in the subject line of your email. Sometimes people just put “post” as their subject, perhaps not realizing that this is what will show up in that handy table of contents in the daily digest email. When the subject is unclear, it necessitates me having to waste precious seconds actually reading the first few words of the post to ascertain if it is of any relevance to me.

Does any of this solution-ing matter? Probably not, given that the admins have seemingly already hit upon their solution: do nothing. Moral suasion will probably restrain most people most of the time from straying too far from the intended purpose of this list, but for those whose speech will not be restrained, they will probably be tolerated if they don’t abuse it too much.

That’s it. Viva respecting the rules! Viva saying whatever the heck you want! You’re free, I’m free, we’re all free to follow the rules or not! (Just try to be nice.)