h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

'That and the fact that it is causing some of the greatest disharmony I can remember between the researchers and the Powers that Be.'

Hmm, despite the fact that we had no say in the decision and so weren't to blame for it coming into place.

Sixty-odd years ago, the phrase 'careless talk costs lives' actually meant something to each and every person in Britain. Now all it seems to do is provoke accusations of 'censorship', which in honesty strikes me as quite a selfish approach to a difficult topic. It's sad to see people campaigning for greater freedom of discussion when the first thing they do is slap such a closed word as 'censorship' on the topic and refuse to accept that 'restriction' could even *possibly* be anything other than a bad thing. This approach turns debate into merely an opportunity to rant, which impresses no-one.

h2g2 enjoys many more freedoms that are simply not possible to maintain on other BBC-owned areas. Our Community, by and large, has input into what happens on-site - certainly the Community has more say in what goes on than anywhere else in the Beeb. As has been suggested in other threads, instead of moaning about the current situation, drafting a clam, rational, unemotional proposal as to how the Community propose to handle similar situations in the future might be a better direction to take.

Jimster - this policy is not a case of careless talk costs lives. think about it:

would anyone in Iraq even have an internet connection?

probably not.

would any information that any researcher would post come from anywhere but official channels like news on TV or internet or papers, which is public information and not dangerous?

probably not.

so, would any talk ever be able to cost lives?

it's more likely i'll win the lottery without buying a ticket.

everyone on h2g2 would accept, and would probably be surprised if there were not restrictions on a topic like this, but there are no restrictions, there is a ban on discussion. the policy does not put restrictions on a topic, it puts restrictions and the topics we can talk about.

this is not a moan, this is a petition to show how the community feels about a topic being banned from discussion. this issue should have been handled like the Afghan situation, with certain restrictions on conversation, but not a ban on the topic.

This petition is for the freedom to speak on any topic, and i is showing you, the editors, the view of the community on this issue. Peta has already mentioned the thread is being looked at and that the petition is being looked at and the views of the comunity in this mater will make a difference. This petition is the communities proposal for h2g2 to be a place where people can talk about anything, and have the freedom of speech for any issue.

>"This approach turns debate into merely an opportunity to rant, which impresses no-one."

it does not in any way. it shows the overwhelming majority of the community disagree with the policy. you could then ask the people who have signed the petition in the petition thread what type of policy they would have preferred, and they could tell you/show you through discussion, posts and entries. a better policy could then be developed that could be used in other situations.

this petition is showing the feelings of the community here. ignore it and consider it an opportunity to rant and you are ignoring the community. use it and ask the people what they want, and they wil respond.

spook

"would anyone in Iraq even have an internet connection?

probably not."


I really don't follow this, spook. Every country in the world has an intelligence service that - yes! - has divisions specifically focused on internet intelligence and terrorism. To discuss this further would drag me into a discussion about the war itself, but suffice to say that assuming that a foreign establishment doesn't have internet access is a mistake.

Once again though, can I just repeat that at no point has there ever been a 'ban' on this or any other topic. On the Archers message board, for example, you are not allowed to discuss anything other than the Archers. Is this censorship? No, not at all. It's a community setting parameters.

We have at no stage said that we want to ban discussion, but have stressed that as we are not equipped to deal with a situation where someone *might* reveal delicate information on here, we have asked people not to discuss it to make it easier for us to find anyone who might possibly be misusing this Community. That is *not* censorship, it's common sense. Every other Community on the BBC has to exist under the same constraints, to enable us to show that, should anything dodgy occur, we've behaved responsibly at every stage and tried to take every step possible not to be responsible for 'careless talk'.

What I'm suggesting here is that you are free to protest all you like, but if you want to be taken seriously, you should at least use the correct terms. This is not an exercise in censorship, as we have provided the Community with an avenue to discuss this war at length - just not on here. If you elect not to take up this avenue, that is *your* choice, not ours.

This is the first real challenge the h2g2 Community has been set since the end of moderation. It's important for us to be able to prove to *our* PTB that our trust in the Community is well-founded. When Peta suggests that people are listening, it goes both ways - they're listening to the complaints, but are also watching to see how the Community handles itself in this situation. A responsible, proactive community is one worth investing in; a community that moans but doesn't try to find its own solutions possibly isn't in the long run.

We've all been impressed by Whoami?'s proposal, A1006354, which is aimed at finding a constructive outcome to all this. That too is being looked at by our PBSs, by the way.

>"This is not an exercise in censorship, as we have provided the Community with an avenue to discuss this war at length - just not on here."

the BBC have told the comunity to go somewhere else, to leave the community to discuss this issue. it's like Tony Blair saying you can talk about the Iraq war, just not in England. you have to go to America. the comunity is here. some people consider it censorship. other people consider it an infringement of free speech. other people simply think it has a bad effect on the comunity. i've updated the page to reflect this.

just because you do not agree with the terms do not mean you are right, as some people consider things differently.

>"This is the first real challenge the h2g2 Community has been set since the end of moderation."

this isn't a chalenge. unless i'm not mistaken the community werenot asked their views on a policy to reflect the situation, but a policy was forced upon us by the BBC PTB. this isn't a challenge at all. the community still follow the rules and yikes postings about the war, even though they don't agree with them. where's the challenge? this petition is here to show the BBC PTB and h2g2 PTB that they disagree with the policy, and that it has a damaging effect on the comunity. if we are asked to work on our own policy to use in times like these which we can submit to the BBC PTB that would be implemented in future occassions we will, but we have not been asked to, nor have we been told if the BBC PTB would even consider such a proposal. no challenge has been set for the community.

>"We've all been impressed by Whoami?'s proposal"

i'm glad you are impressed by one person's proposal. now, perhaps you'll look at this petition and be impressed by the views of 78 people who are protesting against the policy. 1 person - 78 people.

spook

"this issue should have been handled like the Afghan situation, with certain restrictions on conversation, but not a ban on the topic."

Spook, I'm not aware of any difference at all between the policy during the Afghan Crisis and the Iraq Crisis. During the start of the war in Afghanistan, we were not allowed to talk about it. All discussion of the war was directed towards "Great Debate."

i'm talking about the h2g2 Guidelines During the Afghanistan Crisis at A647859 Subcom.

spook

Yes, same ones I was talking about. Could explain the differences between the h2g2 Guidelines During the Afghanistan Crisis at A647859 and the current Guidelines During the Iraq Crisis? I had not noticed any significant differences, except that the Afghan "crisis" has lapsed as far as BBC is concerned. When the Afghanistan policy was in effect, I thought it was almost the same as the Iraq policy. In fact, I think they give more options besides the "Great Debate" to discuss Iraq, those devoted forums for teens or children or whatever. During the Afghanistan "crisis" it was only the Great Debate.

I still think the policy is unnecessary, as we can see by the fact that no other websites or blog systems have instituted policies like this, and there have been no reports of armies being aided by information from websites or embedded reporters that I'm aware of. If someone could link to a news story about how "careless talk" on a website had caused problems during this "crisis" or the "crisis" in Afghanistan, it might help convince us that the policy is reasonable.

Spook, could you put a link from the petition to Whoami?'s page at A1006354? I didn't find that discussion until a few days ago, and a lot of the people who signed this petition would probably be interested.

Thanks,
Deidzoeb

subcom - the difference is that although there were quite a few restrictions during the Afghan crisis, discussion on h2g2 was allowed, moderation was simply a little more on the cautious side. ask the h2g2 community to be a little on the cautious side and yikes postings they are not sure about regarding this issue and they would be cautious, however, the community have been told to yikes all postings as no discussion at all will be allowed on the issue. the Afghan guidelines allow discussion, the Iraq guidelines don't.

spook

done

Let's take a look at the dictionary, shall we?

cen·sor

n.

1. A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.

2. An official, as in the armed forces, who examines personal mail and official dispatches to remove information considered secret or a risk to security.

3. One that condemns or censures.

4. One of two officials in ancient Rome responsible for taking the public census and supervising public behavior and morals.

Psychology. The agent in the unconscious that is responsible for censorship.

tr.v. cen·sored, cen·sor·ing, cen·sors
To examine and expurgate.

[Source: http://dictionary.reference.com .]

Now correct me if I'm wrong, Jimster, but I think that definition comprehensively covers the job of the Moderators and what they've been doing to any postings about Iraq. Therefore, we are being censored by censors. When we use the word 'censorship', we are simply being accurate. When you quibble about the use of that word, you're just adding insult-to-intelligence to injury.

OK, so there's somewhere else on BBCi where we can discuss the conflict. But - as you're generally happy to acknowledge - h2g2 is a community in itself. I may chip in to collective and DNA Hub now and again, but I feel like a member of the h2g2 community, not like a part of BBCi. I'd like to be able to discuss the shock and awfulness of the present global situation with my online friends here, and write about it in . I can't, and that hurts.

Your attempted analogy with the restrictions on the 'Archers' message board is, frankly, just plain silly. Of course, if you post to a message board devoted to a specific show or subject, then you can quite reasonably be expected to keep on the topic. But the last time I checked, h2g2's mission was to produce an online guide to 'life, the universe and everything'. I trust that the Moderators won't mind if I mention that Iraq is in the universe!

As for 'Is this censorship? No, not at all. It's a community setting parameters' - that's just it. We haven't had any chance to set parameters on this issue as a community. Not even you h2g2 Editors had that opportunity. Instead, a clumsy, cowardly, insensitive and inappropriate policy was imposed from above. That policy may have been intended to avoid the causing of offence during the conflict, but it's had precisely the opposite effect, as the number of signatories to this petition clearly demonstrates.

The 'careless talk costs lives' argument could certainly justify a policy forbidding the discussion of details of troop movements and military operations. But it's being used to suppress even the most broadly-based discussion of the rights and wrongs of the biggest events currently taking place on our planet. I don't believe that such a sweeping, draconian policy can be justified at all.

But now, let's get constructive. One thing that it seems we can all agree on is that this situation is unsatisfactory. Presumably the Iraq policy will be lifted soon, as we're being told that the conflict is all but over. I hope with all my heart that there isn't another armed conflict on a similar scale in the near future - but just in case, we need to try to construct a more generally acceptable policy as soon as possible.

A1006354 seems short on detailed proposals right now, but it represents a start. Now it needs some flesh on the bones. I'm going there right now to try to contribute. I hope that many others will do the same.

Spook, I am mightily irritated by your comment "i'm glad you are impressed by one person's proposal. now, perhaps you'll look at this petition and be impressed by the views of 78 people who are protesting against the policy. 1 person - 78 people"

I started this thread because I consider your petition to be - [insert unsupportive adjective of choice here - I am leaving it up to you because I do not want to be inflamatory or directly insulting].

I do not support it, and I wanted it noted that I do not support it. You are choosing to ignore the fact. A cute form of democracy that. If I had more energy at the moment I would be furious, as it is I am just irritated.



For the record, I think that the BBC has been over-cautious in their approach on h2g2, but I also consider it to be their right to do what they like here. Reading between the lines of Jimster's post, I am assuming that there is considerable pressure from the powers behind the towers on the editorial team to keep the community in line, or else. I do not what to speculate what 'else' may be. I don't support the BBC's approach, but I do not oppose it either.

Ben

ben - if you re-read the protest page, you'll see that i changed it to if you think the policy is censorship, taking away your right to free speech or damaging to the h2g2 community.

i don't read between the lines what you read. h2g2 is a place where people can protest freely. if the BBC were to say "all those people are protesting, we don't want this, let's impose more restrictions" then the BBC become comparable to Saddam Hussein in certain ways.

i'm not ignoring the fact that you do not support it. however, this is a protest against the policy. your disagreeing how other people wish to protest against the policy doesn't change anything, and as far as i kow you are the only person against the petition itself, while others have simply declined to sign it since they disagree with tings like wording. however, even those people can join as i a hapy to add any footnote next to anyone who is against the policy but does not agree with the wording of the petition. i have used a footnote like this for Egon to say he does not consider the policy an issue of free speech but that the service of h2g2 suffers. i can do this for anyone so that people can protest using this and specify their poblems which may ot be exactly what the wording of the petition says.

since you made a point about why you started this thread, let me just say:

I started this petition so that people could protest against the policy in one place so that their protests are united in one petition so that if the h2g2 editors want to show the BBC PTB how the community feels about the policy they can show them this list and say:

"78 researchers have signed a petition saying that they are against the policy for certain reasons and because it has a damaging effect on the community. from comments made by researchers throughout the site such as... it is obvious the comunity do not like the policy. however, the community does have a proposal which they think would be a better alternative for both the researchers and the site as a whole."

this petition is here to show the views of the community. the proposal which people from this petition should help with is providing an alternative option. in combination they can mak a difference.

spook

"Now correct me if I'm wrong, Jimster, but I think that definition comprehensively covers the job of the Moderators and what they've been doing to any postings about Iraq. Therefore, we are being censored by censors. When we use the word 'censorship', we are simply being accurate. When you quibble about the use of that word, you're just adding insult-to-intelligence to injury."

Agreed. I am utterly sick of people who censor and then pretend they are not because "censorship" is some sort of dirty word associated with totalitarian systems and so in supposedly free systems we need to find euphamisms for it. "Common sense" for instance.

Sorry, spook. Either the Guidelines for the Afghanistan Crisis changed at some point, or I'm getting it confused with the UK Elections Crisis Guidelines. It doesn't even mention the Great Debate on that Afghanistan Crisis guidelines.

Looks like you were right.

Just to say, Ben.

Nuff said.

Jimster

Let's put it this way, Jimster. Those of us who have worked for large and prestigious organisations are often more aware of the sorts of internal pressures and politics that go on in them in a way that the people who have been wise enough to stay out of those particular -pools aren't. You have my fellow-feeling.

Or to put it another way, and this is directed at Spook, among others. None of us know the full story, and to say 'i don't read between the lines what you read' is neither here nor there, and says more about you than about what Jimster wrote. In my opinion the reason you don't see those things between the lines is almost certainly because you lack the experience to see them. Just because you cannot see them, does not mean they are not there.

'h2g2 is a place where people can protest freely. if the BBC were to say "all those people are protesting, we don't want this, let's impose more restrictions" then the BBC become comparable to Saddam Hussein in certain ways.'

Well, he is a person too, two arms, two legs and he eats and sleeps. Do you have any idea how irritating extrapolating to the ridiculous is? It does not actually serve your argument to do so.

The whole point about the BBC, and I find myself saying this till my tongue bleeds, is that it is NOT an organisation devoted to universal freedom of speech. No-one here, I think, believes that child pornography should be publishable on h2g2. And if that is axiomatic, then we have agreed that there should be limits to what can be published on h2g2, and the only question is 'where do you draw the line'.

The issue is about where is the line drawn, not should there be a line.

There are also several players - the community, the Editors of the site, their immediate bosses in BBCi, and the BBC as a whole. Only the first two are visible, but the last two hold the cards in this debate.

Ach - this whole thing is a storm in a tea-cup. But I reiterate my warning to be adult, responsible and non-insulting about this issue.

a girl called Cassandra

ben - i don't read between the lines what you do because the BBC like to please people, and imposing more restrictions because of one petition would create uproar in the community, people would leave, and it just wouldn't be a smart thing to do.

>"'h2g2 is a place where people can protest freely. if the BBC were to say "all those people are protesting, we don't want this, let's impose more restrictions" then the BBC become comparable to Saddam Hussein in certain ways.'

Well, he is a person too, two arms, two legs and he eats and sleeps. Do you have any idea how irritating extrapolating to the ridiculous is? It does not actually serve your argument to do so."

, where do you get 'he' from? i didn't refer to any member of the BBC, i refered to THE BBC. not a 'he' as far as i know, but an organisation, which you could call the government of this community, which is perhaps a town in BBC country. therefore, to create restrictions because of a petition would be taking away freedoms in the community, it is comparabe to what Saddam Hussein did in Iraq.

and this brings it al back to the point of the petition. h2g2 is our town in BBC country. would you like it if you were banned from talking about Iraq in your town? would you like it if you were told to go all the way to a different town that was not as good, was not your community, and was thousands of miles away to talk about the war?

spook

"the BBC like to please people"

Er. No. That is only ONE of the things that they like to do. The BBC's objectives and agendas are far greater than that and h2g2 is a very small part of their vision.

"where do you get 'he' from?"

Um.

Saddam Hussein is a person, like it or not, and that is who I was referring to. So are you, so am I, and so are the people who run the BBC.

"to create restrictions because of a petition would be taking away freedoms in the community, it is comparabe to what Saddam Hussein did in Iraq"

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

Saddam Hussein killed half a million people, he practiced genocide on the Marsh Arabs and the Kurds, he caused major envoronmental damage by firing the oil wells in Kuwait.

Get a sense of f**king proportion Spook. This is JUST A BLOODY WEBSITE.

"h2g2 is our town in BBC country."

No it isn't. It is a room in the BBC Hotel. If the hotel imposes the rule 'no smoking', I abide by it. If it imposes the rule 'leave your key at the desk when you go out' I abide by it. If it imposes the rule 'check-out by noon', I abide by it.

"would you like it if you were banned from talking about Iraq in your town?"

Spook, this is - or was - a WAR. To quote something from another War: "If you knows of a better 'ole, go to it". I would do what I have done which is take the conversatios elsewhere, conduct them privately, and conduct them prudently.

Ben
*More angry than she can say to have the situation on site compared with genocide*

notre to self: ben doesn't have a sense of perspective.

governmental perspective, not human perspective, hence the BBC being a government setiing policies, Saddam being the head of a government setting policies, you have to have a perspective.

in Saddam's government he banned freedom of speech, put restrictions on what people could say, which is comparable to the BBC. oh wow he killed loads of people, do i bring up all the bad things the BBC has done to compare to that? no, i am focussing on one aspect of one person compared to one aspect of the actions of one organisation.

BBC is not a hotel. h2g2 is a town on an island that existed before the BBC, was unable to sustain itself on it's own, so allowed the BBC empire to take control. the BBC empire then built new towns on the island now known as DNA. the BBC forces of moderators that ruled the town have since left for a community force, yet the BBC government are banning the people in the town from talking about the issue. you may be living in a hotel, i'm living in a world. a world i do not like being damaged by BBC policies like the Iraq policy.

spook