According to their web-site:
"The Electronic Intifada project (EI) is an online publication produced by a small network of pro-Palestinian activists with a history of Internet and media activism, focussed on one aspect of the struggle -- the war in the media for a fair representation of the Palestinian point of view."
The aim of this web site is to influence the media. This has two aspects to it: First, the technical aspect: How do they do it? How does the web-site work, how does the mailing-list work, why did the creators choose these tools to achieve their end and are the means adequate? Second, the journalistic aspect: How does one get the word out? How does one spread alternate readings of the news against desinterest and against geo-strategic interests of the parties involved?
Means
The web-site has a WebLog area where users post their diaries, reporting their daily life, and the impact the conflict has on ordinary people. The ability for everybody to submit stories -- "Residents of the occupied Palestinian territories are invited to submit accounts of developments on the ground to diaries@electronicIntifada.net" -- gives the site additional credibility. It's the lives of everyday people that touches us most. Certainly, the system is very easy to use (mail) but prone to censorship: There is no way for non-authors to determine what is published and what not. On a Wiki, your content would at least remain published until censored (even if the WikiEngine did not include KeptPages, there'd be a time-window, at least). Maybe viewing the site with CritOrg would find dissenting views.
The MailingList is used not to discuss the news or organize actions. It serves only to notify memebers of changes to the web-site. This strategy works well. It follows the guidelines established by JakobNielsen http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20000820.html by sending short emails with summaries of added material and links to the website so that you can read the real text when you want, without taking up too much time when you don't.
Effectiveness
Slowly word is coming out, but it takes time to mobilize people in Europe and America to issues only remotely connected to them. The big newspapers don't carry too many articles -- if they do, they explain what happened, very little background, and offering no way to express your support. The overcoming of the desinterest thus needs to achieve to things: Media presence with in-depth information, and concrete steps that citizens should take. I see this on a lot of US websites, such as on RichardStallman's private page: action items. The EI web site has them as well. The newspaper rarely has them. Lately newspapers have started providing some URLs together with their articles. Thus, the aim of any political organization should be to get their URL into an article. That is the first step. Then, the organization must have action items on their site. That is the second step. From then on, it's a usability question: People should come back (see previous section) and remain involved.
Action Items
The EI is fighting a NetWar, and trying to bring it into the real world via action items. Amongst other things, they quote news articles they find misrepresenting what they consider to be the truth, and offer alternate explanations, and they suggest protest letters to write. Thus, they hope to achieve RealWorld coverage.
Discussion
This problem would be just as bad in a ViewPoint system: How do you spread alternate readings into the system? In a way, the press already works this way. There is a publication for most major "belief systems" and it is very hard to get news specific to one of these systems into other systems. Perhaps we should assume, in order to have a meaningful discussion, that we do care about truth and reality and all that. If you want to argue: "Who cares?" -- then the discussion ends right there.