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

Please post any comments regarding the development of the proposal here. This thread is not for comments relating to its validity. That comes later.

Whoami?

A first comment: change it to 'not for review', before someone tries to be funny.

For the rest, it seems to be a good start

Thanks for reminding me - I meant to do that!

Done now.

I saw it some time earlier.

Maybe it is of some help.
I am not against a policy concerning behaviour in special circumstances like this war, but I have a problem with the implementation that makes it impossible to discuss with the force of the DNA engine.

Also there is the problem of what is allowed and what not.
I agree you should not post something that might endanger someone, but telling what everybody may have seen on television should be allowed with inclusion of which station and maybe at what time.

It would be a good thing if we can compare:
BBC says ..., CNN says ... but Al Jazhira says ... and Bagdad says ...

Thanks for the comments - I have to go and do some work now, but I'll be back later on to set to work on the improvements and solutions section. Then we'll be on to 'Discussion'.

Whoami?

WhoamI? and IMSoP,

Firstly let me congratulate you both for the constructive move you are making in this proposal. By using the organic nature of the Guide to try and stimulate change, you are exploiting the true power of the DNA engine and the communities it creates. I also understand that the document is not complete.

The following are only suggestions that you can dismiss at will. They do come, however, from someone who has worked in the industry for a long time and has the best interest of everyone at heart. Before I begin, I would recommend that some of the language/BBC bashing is toned down. By using emotive language you are in danger of isolating the very people you are trying to reach. I would also recommended dropping the pull-quotes but put in a link to a thread where some of the comments are being made. Nobody likes to be repeatedly told that the decision they have taken is unpopular. And nothing will make them switch off quicker.

Suggestions:

>>> ... but also to prevent operational and tactical details being posted in order to protect troops.

I would replace this with something like 'to limit the possibility of security breaches and to stop spamming, flaming, flooding, trolling and offensive material being posted.'.


>>> This policy decision is probably one of the most controversial things to be inflicted on h2g2 and other BBCi sites. Reactions have varied between disappointment and outrage, with very, very few if any coming out in support of the ruling. This is perhaps understandable as the BBC was effectively preventing the h2g2 community from discussing the most important thing in the world at the moment in their own community, forcing them to go elsewhere.

How about this:

This policy is one of the most controversial decisions to be taken across BBCi sites. Reactions have varied between disappointment and outrage, which is understandable as the BBC was effectively preventing BBCi communities from discussing the most important thing in the world at the moment in their own online community.

>>> as listed by Mina , with 'technical reasons' were cited for this decision:

Remove this as the PTB may not know who our Mina is.


>>> Instead, the crumbly 'h2.cgi' messageboards were used.

Remove the word crumbly. The people who created this technology may be among those reading this proposal.


>>> In addition, the requirement for the BBC to ensure a 'balanced and informed' debate is undoubtedly better served by the Forum-under-Entry nature of h2g2 as opposed to the flat forums of the messageboards.


Why? This is the core reason, this is your chance to really say how DNA is a great tool for the job.

>>> People on h2g2 were also particularly incensed in many cases because it seemed so against the site's remit of 'Life, the Universe and Everything'. Of course, there are things we don't talk about, for instance details on illegal activities. However, at the last check, mentioning current events wasn't illegal.

I'd remove this. It's emotive and the PTB have other sites and communities to consider. Try and make the proposal inclusive of other BBCi communities.


>>> The people of h2g2 are quite keen on freedom of speech, apparently. Some Researchers, who had registered for h2g2...

I'd remove the first sentence as it comes across as slightly preachy. For the second half I would say something like: Many community members register on a DNA site because it offers somewhere they feel they can fit into... (keep it in the present tense)


>>> The fact that h2g2 caters for users from...

The fact that DNA caters for users from...

>>> One reason cited for not joining in at the Great Debate is that the discussions wouldn't be around in years to come in the same way that a contribution to h2g2 is there for posterity.

Among the reasons cited for not joining in at the Great Debate is that the discussions wouldn't be around in years to come in the same way that a contribution to a DNA site is.

>>> Well, to be frank, yes it is. The policy quickly led to resignations amongst the ranks of h2g2 Volunteers, who do a job which we are told is critical to the success of the site. The resignations weren't just disillusioned newbies - some of the most rational and indeed easy-going, experienced Volunteers left the building, or at least the volunteers' part of it.

This come across as preachy and also that you are labouring the point. It is an important point you make, but I'd save it for a later communique.


>>> Peer Moderation Pilot Project and an end in sight to the evils of postmoderation...

Evils is a very emotive word - I'd drop it.


>>> The suppression of a particular topic for vague technical reasons and unimaginative safety reasons was always bound to cause a certain amount of friction. Now that we've established that the current situation is largely unsatisfactory and is probably causing as much grief as it's solving, it is time to investigate the options as they stand, pausing briefly to evaluate each one.

Again this is going on the attack. I'd drop it and concentrate on how you can make the situation better.


What I am trying to communicate is that by using plain, non-aggressive language and by laying out the proposal in a rational manner it will get you noticed a lot quicker than emotive sentences that seem to be going for the jugular.

Keep up the good work.

Ashley

Hi, I agree with Ashley's suggestions.

If we look at this from the angle that 'we understand the reasons behind the policy, but think that the implementation of it was bad' we're more likely to get things changed.

The BBC employs special moderators to look after war discussions, and to be able to discuss war on h2g2 TPTB need to allocate some of these moderators/their time to h2g2/other DNA communities.

What I think the proposal needs is more of a discussion on alternatives. You can think of the document as being planned like this:

* What the current situation is and the reasons for it
* What the problems are with the current situation
* Alternative solutions which can appease everybody

I have left some suggestions (in GuideML!) from ImSop's proposal - feel free to use or discuss.

The main idea so far has been to have a seperate DNA forum on which war can be discussed. This needs to go in the proposal.

Thanks for the feedback, Ashley! I will take up those suggestions - my opinion is creeping through somewhat and that's probably because I drafted this too soon. However, I am now confident I can make the necessary changes - and the final document will be a copy of this so that your thread about 'crumbly' isn't to be found...

Whoami?

Looking at the existing advice on the conflict, I think that some of the problems experienced by H2G2 posts are brought on the site by the vagueness of the original wording (Be careful what you say about... etc.) One persons 'careful' is anothers 'unacceptable' - and when does a 'guideline' become a 'rule' ? Therefore I would suggest a new, clear set of RULES to posting in time of war, making it absolutely defined what is, and what is not, acceptable along with a reminder that breaching those rules could result in said person being banned from site. That way everyone knows where they stand, especially if the rules are sent to every personal space.


My suggestions for those rules would be these:

Never post anything that could directly or indirectly endanger the life of another person (military or civilian).

Never post anything that could reveal the location of troops or military equipment in the war zone(s).

Never post anything that could reveal military tactics.

Never post anything racist or defamatory to person, country or religion.

Never post anything that could be construed as incitement to participation in any type of hostile action.

?

Some of these are already in the rules of the site now, but summarising them along with other suggestions could make things a lot clearer for everyone and maybe even allow a return to the 'normality' of self policing on Hootoo.

What does everyone else think?

"The main idea so far has been to have a seperate DNA forum on which war can be discussed"

For what it's worth, I think this is a bad idea. It's better, I think, to host a single forum on h2g2 for this purpose. We're trying to prove that peer moderation works. Just because this is a sensitive issue doesn't mean peer moderation is suddenly a bad idea.

It also means we're not still asking the community to go elsewhere, which I think is important. Likewise, other communities (like collective, perhaps) should also be able to talk about it in their own space.

Thanks for the food for thought, Jim! I'll have a go at all this just as soon as I can get to the internet for long enough...

Whoami?

I agree that that would be the best solution for the communities to be able to retain their community identity and still be able to chat about the war. But how likely is it?

It seems Editorial Policy has a long way to go...

"But how likely is it?"

A lot more likely than if you don't ask at all.

The moderation excuse is one of the more bizarre aspects about this BBC policy. As the site with the longest standing and hopefully successful peer moderation system, h2g2/DNA would have been the natural place for any debate to take place. Here there are many active readers/posters all round the clock. On the BBCi message boards, external moderation has been shown to be extremely ineffective - slow, missing things and despicably biased in some circumstances.

While I have no intention of endangering anyone even if I had any relevant military information, it is very easy to get a cryptographic message past the official moderators. I have demonstrated this on previous occasions when the message board automatic (+ human?) system was acting irrationally (though I also then informed the board hosts to be fair). It would be nowhere near as easy to get one past my "peers".

I agree with what Jim Posted above. And as one of the more rational and indeed easy-going, experienced Volunteers who left the building I would have happily remained on if the self-moderation which has evolved on H2G2 had have been given a chance to show if it could deal with this on a specially set up forum. I seem to remember we did quite well after 9-11 indeed drawing other people from the BBC onto H2G2 to engage in the discussion which was going on at that time here as there was that sense of community.

I was however most taken aback by the speed and enforced implimentation of the policy on h2g2. From the first warning that the policy might be implimented in the announcements forums to it's implementation was a total of 20 minutes which lead to a lot of the initial postings being a little aggreived including myself who was sat at work at the time that this happened. Being subscribed to these forum I knew exactly the time scale of what happened.

Normally when new policies are being considered on h2g2 they either stem from a researchers suggestion of from the italics who seek input from the community to achieve this.

One example of this was that I asked in one of the implementation forums whether this would apply to our names (especially the brackets that have existed from pre-BBCi days). Having carefully read the policy line by line I found no clear guidance on the original guidelines except that we were not allowed to impersonate any of the key players in the event.

Leaving work less that 45 minutes after raising this question I was therefore shocked to discover that my name had indeed fallen foul to this initial policy statement dispite me quite legitamatley raising the point in a thread about the policy. Being rational and easy-going I didn't want to knowingly break the new protocol.

My reasons for resigning my volunteerships are linked to my political allegiences which at the moment I cannot and would not discuss on the BBC as I'm a candidate for the forthcoming local government elections; so I may get back to that point after May 1. This is something that I do agree that the BBC should maintain, for the sake of impartiality,as no doubt H2G2 will continue to have a fun virtual election to coincide so as we some outpouring however surreal within the community.

DD

I suppose you wanted constructive stuff really. I'll reproduce here my post on the Y! ACE group - which was at least an attempt to be constructive:

======

In this case though, Abi, I think the italics were more guilty of spamming than Spook. Those "yikes everything" messages were sent to all the volunteer groups even though it is completely outside the remit of all (ACEs and Scouts being the closest to being an exception because of the nature of being the first on the scene of a U-number or A-number respectively).

Furthermore, if peer moderation is to be what it says on the tin, then the responsibility is that of the community as a whole - not that of some bunch of prefects (which is the position in which you seem to be trying to force us). I think the message should have been to the community as a whole and on those pages only (eg h2g2/DNA Announcements). All volunteers really should be subscribed to those anyway.

Perhaps you could consider a _short_ list of the most likely pages for such community heads-up messages. Starting a thread on Askh2g2 as an alert might get some attention but seems less official.

The only way to have got around that would have been to auto subscibe every user to the posts announcing the policy and also to get everyone aware of the peer moderation of what would be expected in those instances surely.

It was those of us who were aware of the actually policy who would have been aware of the policy as most researchers do not make a daily pilgrimage to the front page where they would not have failed to miss the policy implementation, nor is everyone subscribed to the announcement forums as normal.

Thanks for the help, guys. I'll make my best effort to get this updated as soon as possible - and thanks for the support once again, Jim!

Hi Whoami,

Thanks for spending the time working on this, it's very useful.

Frankie made a few comments:

1. What the current situation is and the reasons for it
2. What the problems are with the current situation
3. Alternative solutions which can appease everybody

Particularly point two, what are the problems with the current situation? I've got a pretty good idea what you're likely to say having read many if not all of the conversations relating to this whole issue; but I'd really like to hear your collective views on this particular point debated/summarised.

When you've updated the page can you please come and let me know on my personal space Whoami? I'll keep an eye on this particular conversation, but it'd be good to keep abreast of how the project is progressing as a whole. Thanks lots!