Why get involved?

You don't like not being allowed to talk about the war on h2g2 do you? Well, then. And if that wasn't enough for you, then here's U276's take on things:

"If you want change, stop ranting and contribute to Whoami?'s proposal."

The Purpose of this Document

This document is intended to document the situation that has arisen as a result of Conflict Moderation Policy across BBCi with particular reference to DNA, including h2g2. It is not intended to express an opinion on any current war or international situation, nor is it the opinion of the BBC or of the Italics¹. The document looks at the current problems with the policy and suggests and evaluates some possible improvements or solutions.

About the Moderation Policy during Conflicts

BBCi is composed of many sites each with their own characteristics, policies and rules - a wonderful variety of opportunities and sites to cater for many tastes. However, at times of political controversy or of conflict, one overriding policy decision is made which affects all of the sites. At times of UK General Elections, the BBC's commitment to be impartial means that talking party politics is not allowed in many circumstances. This is largely to prevent sites acquiring an unnecessary bias and to discourage people from trying to influence the vote.

In times of conflict, for example those in Afghanistan and Iraq, or anywhere where the British Armed Forces are operating, talk about the conflict is limited to a select few sites and only small subsections of those - again to discourage unnecessary bias and to ensure BBC impartiality regarding the politics of the war, but also to limit the possibility of security breaches and to stop spamming, flaming, flooding, trolling and offensive material being posted.

Problems with the Policy

Many Researchers responded in the Announcements threads with a tone of disappointment and dismay. There is no doubt that the policy as it stands is restrictive, and in many cases impractical. In the case of the Iraq Conflict, conversation was restricted to a few BBC Messageboards, with 'technical reasons' cited for this decision:

• Radio 4's Today Programme
• BBC News' 'The Great Debate'
• BBC Radio Five Live
• Where I Live [premoderated]
• Newsround [for children]
• Onion Street [for younger teens]
• Radio 1's 'One Life' [premoderated]

The one thing that these areas had in common was ultimately that they were not powered by the robust DNA technology that Researchers know and love. Instead, the 'h2.cgi' messageboard system was used. A far more rudimentary style of discussion is possible on these sites due to the nature of the technology - there is no satisfactory way to keep track of your discussions, posts must be short, and threads have a tendency to be clogged up with rubbish. The display of messages can be confusing. The boards even crashed, or at least became inaccessible, in the first few days, in all probability due to the heavy load on the boards.

The requirement for the BBC to ensure a 'balanced and informed' debate is surely better served by the Forum-under-Entry nature of DNA as opposed to the flat forums of the messageboards. The ability to put forward a viewpoint in an Entry and have 'for' and 'against' threads is just one example of the versatility of DNA.

Many community members register on a DNA site because it offers somewhere they feel they can fit into. The idea that they should ahve to use other sites to communicate something due to a technical formality or a policy decision does not, therefore, appeal to them. The fact that DNA caters for users from across the globe is also a sticking point - the messageboards offered for war discussion were, like other BBCi messageboards, open 12 hours a day during the week, 8 hours at weekends - all during UK daytime.

DNA sites are far, far less transitional and temporary than the messageboards - and the archives can be easily searched. 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.

Is this really such a big issue?

Moderation itself isn't something that h2g2's Researchers are all that fond of, but that particular problem had been lessening with the Peer Moderation Pilot Project and an end in sight to postmoderation, which was implemented when the BBC acquired h2g2. The suppression of a topic on the basis that it might be too 'important' to be handled by the new Peer Moderation system - a tried and tested system that worked well in the pre-BBC h2g2 - is unfortunate and seems to go against the trusting and positive relationship that exists between DNA staff and the sites' Users - something that can be noticed very quickly when using h2g2, for example.

Possible Improvements/Solutions

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.

Conclusion

Discussion