 |
|   | Subject: What is the BBC's interest in h2g2?
Posted Jul 25, 2001 by LL Waz | | Post: 1
|
The original h2g2 was to create the guide and to create a community to support it. That's as I understood things. I'm sure when h2g2 came back I saw something which indicated the BBC's interest was in the 'online community' aspects of the site. What I'd like to know is whether that is their main interest, as opposed to the creation of the guide to LtUandE, or whether they see the guide as equal in importance, or of any importance (to them I mean, not us). What are their intentions with this community they now support? What on earth do they get out of this deal other than an enormous bill? They get no income and with their resources and archives I find it difficult to believe we're adding much in that way.
It was thinking about the issues of 'lurking' that started me wondering about this, I needed to know the purpose of the site to come to any conclusion, the BBC's goals are a part of that now and I'm unsure of the answer.
Does anyone out there know? Does anyone out there think it matters? If the BBC's interests turn out to be different to ours as researchers does that matter? Its been bugging me for a fortnight now and I really would like some opinions.
I'm posting this here not at Ask h2g2 because I think an understanding of the BBC's view of this site is a community issue. If I'm wrong just  and I'll get off the box.
(Or if this is already being discussed somewhere please give me directions.)
I had been going to post the same question - very slightly differently worded.
It is clear that this is something that People Want to Know.
Mark's post number 29 in the 'shall I stay or shall I go' thread
http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F19585&thread=127799&skip=20&show=20
indicates that the BBC had almost no idea what it had got hold of.
In fact, it is so disturbing that I will copy it as the next post.
a subversive called Ben
Subcom: 'But what change has been accomplished by the "positive" methods of the h2g2 staff?'
Good question! If what we were achieving (and still struggling to achieve) was visible outside, I'm sure that there would be far fewer criticisms of complicity fired at the h2g2 team.
Here's an incomplete list of things that we've had an effect on changing. I should point out that some of these changes have come about because those on the BBC message boards *also* wanted these changes, and the purchase of h2g2 proved a good catalyst for them to push for these changes too, but here we go:
* Before h2g2 joined the BBC, there were absolutely *no* URLs allowed in any user-generated content, outside of a small trial on the Doctor Who message board. We won permission to include URLs in Guide Entries, and we're still fighting for permission to include them in Conversations too. Also, on the BBC message boards, postings containing URLs are simply failed, rather than edited, as they are on h2g2.
* One of the pre-h2g2 BBC rules was that people couldn't create usernames that weren't real (ie you couldn't call yourself 'Arthur Dent' or 'Zaphod Beeblebrox'). Obviously this wasn't feasible, so we got this rule lifted.
* Before h2g2 joined the BBC, nobody could post email addresses, instant messaging numbers or other contact details *anywhere* on the BBC. We won permission to allow general contact details (ie email addresses but not specific geographical addresses) to be posted.
* Before we threw our first BBC/h2g2 party the other weekend, real-time meet-ups were not supported or even considered within the BBC; the attitude was definitely one of 'who on earth would want to *meet* our users?' Having seen the utterly positive effect and vibe of the h2g2 party, this attitude is changing, and there may well be BBC attendees at future real-time meets connected to other areas of the BBC.
* Before h2g2 joined the BBC, the only way that user-generated content was publishable under the BBC banner was if it had been heavily edited beforehand (check out the way BBC News still does it). Now users can instantly publish their material on a BBC site.
* Moderation on the rest of the BBC is much, much more final - it's an unarguable decision that is not discussable anywhere on the BBC. We have a specific area for discussion (and often correction) of moderation decisions, because we don't claim that moderation is a perfect science.
* Moderation on h2g2 is *not* done by BBC staff, unlike the rest of the BBC. We use a third-party company who employs people like graduate students who want to earn money from home, and who are far more in tune with h2g2 and its vibe than certain BBC employees would be. Although moderation is not perfect, this does mean we fail or edit *far* less content than on the BBC message boards.
* On the BBC message boards, off-topic content is failed straight away. As drifting off topic is a fundamental and pretty positive aspect of h2g2 communication, we fought to have this rule waivered for h2g2.
* On the BBC message boards, swear words are starred out by an automatic filter, which is not perfect (eg 'Dagonsphere' on the Buffy board became '****nsphere' because it starts with an offensive term, so now people post it as 'Dag onsphere'). We use humans to star out swear words, which means that we can leave in swear words that are OK in context (such as swear words in song titles, which are editorially justifiable).
* We developed the Yikes system in the hope that this would be able to replace pro-active moderation in the future. Various legal developments have made this solution look less and less likely, but nobody else on the BBC has such a system, so you can't complain about specific content on the BBC message boards.
* We allow innacurate stuff to be published - anyone can publish rubbish on h2g2, if they so desire, and this is acceptable (though not necessarily desirable!). This has never happened before on the BBC, and doesn't yet happen on any other sites.
* On the BBC message boards, you can't post up a message that simply says 'anyone fancy a chat?' - it will be failed as it's effectively off topic. Obviously, this doesn't happen on h2g2, so that's another rule we don't employ!
* The BBC message boards are a lot stricter when removing arguments. We are happy to leave them up, as it's a very healthy way of developing the Community, as long as they don't sink into serious flaming.
* We allow Bubblish, because we can translate it using a website, and can then moderate it. If we could also do the same to foreign languages, we'd do the same... but we don't have technology that's good enough yet. (Babelfish isn't up to the job, sadly, and we can't legally use Researchers to translate content, as the BBC would still be liable.) On the rest of the BBC, only English is allowed, full stop (except for Welsh on the Wales site).
There are definitely other things we're responsible for changing. We have managed to change the perception of 'community' within the BBC and how it can be developed, nurtured and made into something as positive as h2g2. Lots of important people at the BBC are very excited about h2g2, and plenty of areas of the BBC are very keen to incorporate h2g2-esque technology into their sites.
All this has been achieved through an amazing amount of hard work, discussion, and putting ourselves out on a limb. Much of our work is focussed around trying to retain or go back to as much of the 'original' h2g2 as possible; remember that the pre-BBC h2g2 was a real implementation of what we believed h2g2 should be, so new additions like moderation and heavier rules are *not* what we wanted, or we'd have implemented them before we joined the BBC. But we're realistic, we want h2g2 to survive, we want it to continue to be ground-breaking, and we won't achieve that by either giving up, or being obnoxious to those in the BBC who are responsible for maintaining editorial standards. The Editorial Policy unit may not agree with the way we'd like to do certain things (those masturbation entries are *still* hidden ) but you can't deny that they come from a perfectly arguable and understandable viewpoint. It's just different to ours, and the only way to change things is to persuade (or 'convince' ) them.
I hope this shows that, even though it's not obvious from outside, we are achieving a lot through positive action. Some of it might be simply undoing the more negative aspects of joining the BBC, but it's still progress. Besides, without the BBC, h2g2 wouldn't exist in any form any more, and that's pretty important to remember.
And I haven't even mentioned the wars that were fought (and still are) by technical people like Jim. Platform and operating system wars are never a pretty sight!
I should have said that the *implications* of the post were disturbing, I actually found the post fairly reassuring.
Hope you don't mind me re-posting it Mark.
An over-hasty poster called Ben
|  | Subject: A copy of a post by Mark Moxon
Posted Jul 26, 2001 by LL Waz
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 5
|
Thanks agc Ben, that is very enlightening. Like you I also find it both reassuring and worrying.
The fact that people at the BBC are excited about h2g2 etc.is reassuring but the BBC's lack of a clear purpose for the site is worrying. How can they make good (and consistent) decisions on how to run the guide or the community and all the issues Mark mentions without knowing what their objective it is.
agcB, where would your wording have differed? If I've missed something I'd appreciate it if you'd add to what I've asked.
| | Subject: A copy of a post by Mark Moxon
Posted Jul 26, 2001 by Jamie
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 6
|
Warning - long, rambly missive follows...
One of the problems here is that currently the BBC itself is, I think, a little uncertain of it's role in life. On the political side, the mantra these days is 'private good, public bad'. The BBC (at least as far as the Home service, and the World service to some extent) represents the sort of public service ethos which is rather unfashionable at the moment  Thus you get the periodic outbreaks of 'privatise the beeb' from politicians who really ought to know better.
(Actually, 'privatising' is somewhat of a misnomer, as the BBC is not owned by the government. In this case it would probably mean abolishing the licence fee (tax) and raising the money either from adverts or a pay-per-view system. The governence of the corporation would probably change, possibly by conversion into a PLC or whatever.)
Thus I think the BBC are (a) rather defensive about their position and (b) trying to think ahead to a future where the licence fee is no more. This explains the idea floated a few weeks ago that people might pay to access BBC online in the future. Several large technical holes in the proposal were rapidly pointed out, but I have the feeling this was more of a test to see how people would react to the idea (or possibly even to get people used to the idea).
Also, remember that the government set the licence fee, and appoint the directors (or is it the governors, I can't remember). They may not have editorial control, but they still have a few large strings to pull if they choose. Hence the fanatical devotion by Auntie to avoid bias or the perception of bias, especially around election time. Hence the defensive mindset mentioned earlier. Getting sued is another no-no, and so we have the moderators.
And finally, the BBC is a large and bureaucratic organisation. Inertia rules supreme.
So (Finally!) why did they accuire h2g2? Because they want to expand into new media (digital TV, web, sub-etha net?). Why h2g2 specifically? I guess because of the DNA connection, not as an altruistic gesture to him (although that is possible) but simply because the connection was there (and because h2g2 is so darn froody, of course). I would like to think that they recognised the unique qualities of this place, but I doubt it.
Do they know what they have? Probably not. However, this is not necessarily a bad thing. It means that they might allow the community to evolve without too much overt editorial interference. The main problem is to try and reduce the restrictions that are hampering that evolution (intrusive moderation etc.)
I hope I'm right.
| | Subject: A copy of a post by Mark Moxon
Posted Jul 26, 2001 by Jamie
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 7
|
And a thought on Mark's post - I think it needs as much publicity as possible. If he had written that a few months ago it might have saved a lot of argument. Ah well.
Jamie (now with 20/20 hindsight)
| | Subject: A copy of a post by Mark Moxon
Posted Jul 26, 2001 by LL Waz
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 8
|
Jamie froody is the word  . You could be right about the DNA factor, but what now?
If they don't recognise the qualities of h2g2 it could as you say mean low interference or it could work the other way. They might, at the first real problem take the easy route of bringing in the much less flexible management (and moderation) they have elsewhere in BBC On-line. A real appreciation of what this place is about and of the creation of the guide might persuade them to take more risks in lifting restrictions.
On the issue of someday charging for access, the more unique h2g2 is the better chance they have of people signing up given all the alternative places they can go.
(On a slightly side issue, just to be fair to Auntie, I think the avoidance of bias is also the desire to be seen not to be using public funds to promote any political party. And you have to admit that its often just a face value exercise. The way some programmes, comedians in particular, get round (are allowed ? to get round) the rules they end up making more of an impact by appearing to comply.)
Jamie you are right about the uncertain position of the BBC - do they use public funding to programme for the majority - which is shamefully populist, and which commercial stations do already - or for the minority - which is shamefully elitist (depending on the minority of course) and which ah commercial stations will do (thinking of Discovery, National Gographic and the History Channel here).
The question which was on the tip of my keyboard was to use 'vision' instead of 'interest'... and both are important.
***B
| | Subject: What is the BBC's vision for h2g2?
Posted Jul 27, 2001 by LL Waz
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 10
|
Wish you'd got there first, vision is better.
(BTW Jamie, according to the National Asset Register the BBC is owned by the government's Dept. of Culture, Media and Sport with a valuation of £926m. The article I was reading referred to it as a state owned semi-commercial undertaking.)
| | Subject: What is the BBC's interest in h2g2?
Posted Jul 28, 2001 by Deidzoeb
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 11
|
[Can I join this conversation if I promise to be good and not to repeat myself?]
I always thought this bit from the "about h2g2" FAQ was somewhat awkward....
"Why does h2g2 exist and how does it fit into BBC Online?"
"h2g2 is extremely complementary to BBC Online. Where BBC Online contains content written and published by the BBC, h2g2 contains content written and published by the public; in both cases the content is of a high quality, but h2g2 is quite a different model. They fit together like hand and glove..."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/DontPanic-About
I've read that excerpt over and over again, and I still can't quite figure if it bodes well for the health of the community.
Deidzoeb,
You can repeat yourself as much as you like so far as I am concerned, what you say is always interesting, and we may not have read the other forums.
Is it the iron hand, and the velvet glove?
You are right - that is a bizzare little fragment, isn't it?
***B
| | Subject: What is the BBC's interest in h2g2?
Posted Jul 28, 2001 by LL Waz
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 13
|
Yes, repeat away please Subcom., or point to where you've already discussed this because I'd like to read it.
If I read the FAQ you've pointed to on its own the most I can get from it is that ,on the face of it, it says h2g2 exists to show content written by the public within BBC Online. It doesn't say what the aim of that, within BBConline, is and doesn't mention the community. You could conclude that what it really says is that the BBC doesn't know why h2g2 exists within the BBC and that doesn't bode well. For reasons I've already mentioned.
If, to be as fair as possible, you read it in conjunction with the answer to "What is h2g2?" from which I've extracted the following ;
"h2g2 is the entertaining and unconventional guide to Life, the Universe and Everything, is a living, breathing guide that's constantly being updated and revised, driven forward by the very people who use it."
and make the assumption that the BBC signed up to this when they took h2g2 on then then you have something that I would be happy with. The key elements being 'entertaining', 'unconventional', 'driven forward by the people who use it'.But I've seen no evidence that they have consciously signed up to this.
| | Subject: What is the BBC's interest in h2g2?
Posted Jul 28, 2001 by Deidzoeb
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 14
|
If you value the "unconventional" qualities of something, I don't see why you would add more restrictions (conventions) to it.
"...But I've seen no evidence that they have consciously signed up to this."
It's a strange paradox. They must have looked over a lot of h2g2 before buying it. They must have known what they were getting. They want it to be creative and "unconventional," but at the same time, they want it to fit into a set of sanitizing restrictions and conventions.
So the evidence that they liked the old h2g2 is that they bought it in the first place. The evidence that they didn't like it is all the new restrictions they dropped into place after buying it.
My old theory was that creative membership of h2g2 would gradually depopulate, and h2g2 would dry up like a ghost town. I don't think that will happen any more. But my new hope is that the community and the content of the guide will outlast the restrictive decision-makers.
I'm sure they're all fine gentlemen and ladies, but look over the personal histories of BBC execs at http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/bbc/acc_who2.shtml and you'll see the kind of corporate climbing necessary to attain these positions. It's a dog-eat-dog world, and you don't become a Director of something at BBC without moving millions of tubs of "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter!" As with anyone in the modern business world, these people are doing their best in their current positions, but always with an eye out for a better position elsewhere. Maybe "Not Butter" will realize what an asset they've lost, and they'll hire back that dude. There must be an incredible rate of turnover in executive positions these days. The antique notion of loyalty to one company didn't survive into the Twenty-first century, because you can't make car payments with loyalty.
So if any BBC decision-makers seem too restrictive right now, kick back and wait a few months. Wait for the next "restructuring." (I don't mean this as a swipe at any particular BBC director, especially "I Can't Believe It's Not Director of Something!," but a swipe at the business world in general. Hell, I'm fairly satisfied at my job, and I get automatic keyword searches emailed to me from Headhunter and Monster and other job searches. "I Can't Believe Deidzoeb's Not A Hypocrite!")
I write guide entries now thinking of the possibility that future moderators or readers will laugh at the ridiculously prim standards BBC had in 2001. Who knows what perverse topics will someday soon be considered worthy of the Edited Guide?
| | Subject: What is the BBC's interest in h2g2?
Posted Jul 29, 2001 by LL Waz
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 15
|
h2g2 has elements that relate to several of those BBC Directorships, I suspect we're in New Media. I did some exploring around the BBC site and read some of the Beyond 2000 Strategy report. I can now see why they're interested in us. Being a late addition we didn't feature in it of course. It is early days for them to have integrated our surprise arrival.
I tried the search on BBC Online. Good to see that this time it didn't come up with nothing at all. One of the sites listed was http://www.bbc.co.uk/webwise/column/print94.shtml it contained the following ' .....although Adams was unable to generate an income or get funding to keep it going, so ended up selling it to BBC Online, where it now sits as a major part of their online community, it remains an amazing and inspiring example of what people can do with the web.'
I can't work the context of this document, how it got onto BBC's webwise (whatever that is), who it was addressed to...I'd like to know if it's an internal (to the BBC) piece. Can anyone help?
(PS ..."The antique notion of loyalty to one company didn't survive into the Twenty-first century" - Sadly I'm not sure it survived the last quarter of the last century. (Same job for four years! Hmmm must be unable to get anything else..). However, in the BBC's case there may have been an element of breaking the perception of constant, often undeserved ( perception I'm talking about - this is not my view although I wouldn't deny it can happen) internal promotion that the public sector is accused of.)
| | Subject: What is the BBC's interest in h2g2?
Posted Jul 29, 2001 by Jamie
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 16
|
Waz,
It looks like it is intended for external consumption, and as such I'd guess it does not reflect BBC policy to any great extent. After all, isn't that the whole point of being a columnist? You write words of wisdom and then get to write about how your advice was not followed, the fools
I also had a quick look at the strategy reports. There isn't much at all about online stuff, mostly it talks about interactive TV (i.e. emphasis on the broadcast model). They mention that the current website is great and wonderful (and to be fair, it ain't bad) but there does not seem to be any mention about how it will expand and so on.
And you're right of course, the government does own the BBC. I was thinking in terms of people who see the BBC as an arm of government. So privatisation would in fact be privatisation. Got a bit mixed up there...
"They must have looked over a lot of h2g2 before buying it. They must have known what they were getting." Hmmm. It would be interesting to know who (what level of management) made the decision to buy h2g2. Did a high level person take a quick look, think 'yeah, this looks like the cool hip thing the online division should be into' and direct the staff to buy the thing. Or did people lower down in the organisation look at and understand the potential of the site, and then evangelised about it to the right people?
I have a feeling it might have happened the second way. I was involved briefly with a pilot BBC project to produce a sort of 'h2g2 plus', basically the same idea as h2g2 but with pictures, video, the whole nine yards. This was with the Imagineering department. They certainly seemed to be pretty keen on the idea, although it seems to have gone a bit quiet after Rupert.
I wonder how many BBC staff actually look or even participate here?
| | Subject: What is the BBC's interest in h2g2?
Posted Aug 1, 2001 by Mark Moxon
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 17
|
Perhaps it's better to split the question into two halves?
"Why did the BBC buy h2g2?"
I wasn't at the BBC when they purchased the assets and staff from the old h2g2 Ltd, but it's probably safe to assume that back then (a) the BBC was very aware of the importance of community in the future development of the Web, and (b) h2g2 was an example of a cutting-edge community that did things very differently to most traditional media companies (including the BBC).
And then h2g2 found itself floundering on the rocks during the collapse of the dotcom market, and the BBC spotted a chance to buy into a bit of that cutting edge action. Smart move! 
"What is the BBC going to do with h2g2 now that h2g2 is a part of the BBC?"
We'll get back to you on this...
Thanks for dropping by, Mark.
From what you say, the beeb stepped in twice? A history lesson would lessen the mystery. Do tell more!
Out on a tangent - it occurred to me recently that Jim has created some s**t hot software here, and if all the beeb did was market it out to other web communities they could cover an overhead or two. Design up some new skins, create some user documentation, clone Jim, and bob's your middle name.
Don't tell me, if it means you have to shoot me. 
***B
| | Subject: What is the BBC's interest in h2g2?
Posted Aug 2, 2001 by Mark Moxon
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 19
|
Uh, no, they only stepped in once - when h2g2 was floundering on the rocks. Did I say they'd stepped in twice?
Can't see where...
Sometimes I read to fast for my own good, Mark, and I got confused when you said:
'I wasn't at the BBC when they purchased the assets and staff from the old h2g2 Ltd,'.... 'And then h2g2 found itself floundering on the rocks during the collapse of the dotcom market, and the BBC spotted a chance to buy into a bit of that cutting edge action.'
Reading it the first time around, I assumed that you were referring to two separate events.
a bear of very little brain called Ben
Please note that Not Panicking Ltd is not responsible for the content of any external sites listed. The content on h2g2 is created by h2g2's Researchers, who are members of the public. Unlike Edited Guide Entries, the content on this page has not necessarily been checked by a h2g2 editor. In the event that you consider anything on this page to be in breach of the site's House Rules, please
click here
.
|
