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

Just a few thoughts on a possible solution to this problem...


Set up a permanent DNA 'Crisis' site.

This would be a separate DNA site, specifically aimed at containing discussions on potentially difficult subjects - Military Conflict, Political Crises, etc...

--------

Having a separate site for this type of discussion offers several advantages to both the DNA user and the BBC.

Firstly, a DNA site, whilst allowing the regular DNA user more freedom and compatibility, would still offer the BBC a great deal of control over what was posted. (Various levels of moderation possible (post, individual pre-moderation, global pre-moderation, restricted use etc.)
This could include limiting the creation of entries to BBC staff (as is the case with http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/hub/ ), thus further limiting the spread of conversations. For example, in the event of a crisis, the BBC staff could create a page entitled 'Conversations on the subject of .....', leaving the DNA user the freedom to start conversations on that subject below one single entry.

-----

A few questions and potential answers

-----

But why use a DNA site?

Apart from the technological advantage of the DNA technology, its use is gradually spreading throughout the BBC and in the future is likely to become more and more widespread, attracting an even wider range of users, all of whom are involved in an ever increasing range of topics. So, the more popular DNA technology becomes, the more likely the current policy of limiting discussions to a non-DNA messageboard is to alienate existing and future DNA site users.

Why not the current message board system?

Even though the current BBC message board system is widely used, DNA sites are being set up to attract new users to the BBC and to create new on-line communities. Whilst some DNA sites may be integrated into (or replace) existing message boards, some are (and will in the future) be aimed at attracting a new 'class' of user to the BBC. Some of these users will have never used a message board system and may feel restricted by the requirement to learn how to use 'yet another' new means of communicating.



The BBC only has limited moderation and monitoring facilities and would prefer to use those on a classical messageboard and not split them over two systems

Whilst this may be sound policy currently, the wider DNA technology spreads throughout the BBC the more likely it is that existing message board users come into contact, and start to use, various DNA sites.
The reverse is not necessarily true. Users of DNA sites may be attracted to the various sites for very specific community reasons and may not be regular message board users or may not even be interested in exploring other areas of the BBC website.

This would lead to a conclusion that in a future crisis it may cause less disruption to both DNA communities and existing message board users if conversations on a certain subject were restricted to a DNA site as opposed to a message board.



----


By god I can waffle once I get going

Any thoughts? Suggestions? Am I too late? Has this already been discussed to death elsewhere whilst I've been too busy insulting people?

Just a few thoughts on these thoughts on a possible solution to this problem...


>Set up a permanent DNA 'Crisis' site.

>This would be a separate DNA site, specifically aimed at containing discussions on potentially difficult subjects - Military Conflict, Political Crises, etc...

The fact that we are having to envisage future crisis while this current one is still upon us (officially as the currect guidelines are still in existance) is scary. But I do agree that it is very likely that crisis conditions will sadly again prevail.

I think we can set up a Crisis Centre on DNA quite happily it can be successfully monitored and researchers who do post about any future crisis should be responded to and asked that question on the correct threads. Rather than just yikes them could we also move the thead over for them along with a link to them before yikesing the posting.


--------

Different Sites

>Firstly, a DNA site, whilst allowing the regular DNA user more freedom and compatibility, would still offer the BBC a great deal of control over what was posted. (Various levels of moderation possible (post, individual pre-moderation, global pre-moderation, restricted use etc.)

I agree with these proposals they seem logical. We all know how to do that DNA is about responding to subjects and where we do this is generally not a problem. The Great Debate was not easily accesible nor understandable to DNA users who don't frequent the main BBC discussion forums and it took ages to do anything. And even then as it was supposedly a discussion forum the amount of what ond how it could be discussed I found incredibly limiting getting moderated about 20 times.


A few questions and potential answers


But why use a DNA site?

>Apart from the technological advantage of the DNA technology, its use is gradually spreading throughout the BBC and in the future is likely to become more and more widespread, attracting an even wider range of users, all of whom are involved in an ever increasing range of topics. So, the more popular DNA technology becomes, the more likely the current policy of limiting discussions to a non-DNA messageboard is to alienate existing and future DNA site users.

Also the navigation systems are easier to follow. Backlog is easier to read as are all the conversations on any subject. Grrr!!! Again the Great Debate seemed illogical in its layout thouroughly confusing in the end I gave up and went to the limited security of OTD, where at least I knew the names and meet up with some other H2G2 exiles.

Why not the current message board system?

>Even though the current BBC message board system is widely used, DNA sites are being set up to attract new users to the BBC and to create new on-line communities.

Its this community thing that is the difficulty. People on DNA do feel part of a community. Can you imaging going into your local pub, or get on the bus or sit down with your work colleagues and not be able to talk about all current affairs in a situation you feel comfortable. No! However the BBC policy has forced members of the community to migrate, use their real names or not mention it at all by bear it in silence. This is not how real communities operate nor should it be how on line ones have to operate.

>The BBC only has limited moderation and monitoring facilities and would prefer to use those on a classical messageboard and not split them over two systems

This is surely some form of discrimination as the two types of user do not necessarily crossover and mingle easily. Surely some form of division of labour could have been possible

>Whilst this may be sound policy currently, the wider DNA technology spreads throughout the BBC the more likely it is that existing message board users come into contact, and start to use, various DNA sites.
>The reverse is not necessarily true. Users of DNA sites may be attracted to the various sites for very specific community reasons and may not be regular message board users or may not even be interested in exploring other areas of the BBC website.

Again I agree wholeheartedly. I use DNA as Demon Drawer but use the BBC as a resource for other purposes and therefore am on there as myself and my real name. However I rarely use the BBC message boards and I get info from other means and discuss them in different settings and media generally if that is what I need to do.

>This would lead to a conclusion that in a future crisis it may cause less disruption to both DNA communities and existing message board users if conversations on a certain subject were restricted to a DNA site as opposed to a message board.

This would appear from arguments put forward so far that there is a far greater need for this to enhance the USe of DNA technologies and to increase the available moderation force as peer moderation is in place.

The BBC could just leave everything as it is and put a disclaimer at the bottom of each page that makes it clear that the opinions of h2g2s researchers are not necessarily that of the BBC. Oh, hang on...

Perhaps they could, um, make the font bigger or, er, something?

Ste

Well pointed out. Yet again there Ste.

Unfortunately, as has already been seen on the BBC - The disclaimer doesn't actually mean a thing...People have already apparently tried to sue the beeb for postings to message boards...

Another reason they'll never go for an "anything goes" approach is the difficulty in monitoring the whole site - h2g2 would have to go back to being moderated straight away.

Whiskey, do you have links to stories about people attempting to sue the Beeb for message board postings? I'd be interested to read those.

Couldn't find anything the other day when I posted... but I'll have another trawl later on to see if I can dig anything up

Aarghhh Sorry, lost track of this one...

The link you're looking for is http://media.guardian.co.uk/newmedia/story/0,7496,908031,00.html

The policy has been suspended - check <./>Announcements</.>. However, this is not the end of the Proposal - we need to try and make sure this doesn't happen again.

Whoami?

Read post one Whoami... this is all about what happens next time

Sorry. Generic post alert!

I had hoped that the Demon case pretty much endorsed reactive moderation. The problem was not so much that Demon had "published" libelous messages in the first place, but they refused even to remove the postings after that guy complained.

So if BBC moderated things after they received complaints, one would hope it should be enough to satisfy people. If the court finds that public message boards in the UK must all be pre-emptively moderated...