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

A good question - which also implies that, to the best of your knowledge, it hasn't already been recommended and blocked.

Well it's currently still sitting there in limbo between being picked and being 'recommended'. Which I suppose, if one wants to shelve an entry is rather a good place to leave it. Of course all of the Scouts can see it's status on our <./>Scoutrecommendations</.> page, and ponder to ourselves how long it will remain there.


::twiddles thumbs::

Perhaps I am being slightly dense, but everybody on this thread talks about reading the article and it not being that bad. Where exactly does one read this seemingly damned piece? I am very curius.

Frankly I find it odd. It seems like it's stuck in an eddy while the italics decide on it

Ferrettbadger: The article is linked to from the first page of this thread and is A1085636.

RhoMuNuQ

Having read the article I think it is a scandal that it has been removed, there is nothing smutty or obscene, just innuendo. If the beeb has a problem with innuendo how come they show Carry On films before the watershed. However I can recognise that for some people the title could be a little mis-leading.

On a more general note where an item is removed, a proper full and transparant explanation must be shown if we are to have any confidence in the system of editors.

So come on, a proper and full explanation of why the article was removed.

Ferretbadger:

Possibly some confusion here: read the first post in this thread again. This is NOT the entry that was removed.

I wrote an entry which was more honest about its content and intent - it was titled "A Gentleman's Guide to Making your own pornography", or something similar.

It was *slightly* more upfront, in that it did not skirt the issue of what it was about.

It went through Peer Review, was picked, Edited, and went on the Front Page.

Fine.

Then two MONTHS later, it was deleted without explanation.

Worse still, if you clicked on a link to it, you got a message saying *I*, the author, had deleted it, which was not only a lie but actually impossible - use peons can't deleted Edited Entries, even if we wrote them.

All I got was an email with a platitudinous "Editorial Policy have decided it doesn't fit the guidelines for content". Note that no links were provided to these guidelines, and NOWHERE in the terms and conditions I agreed to when joining h2g2 are they mentioned. I had always assumed that the House Rules of h2g2 were a subset of any possible other rules, but since the Editors of h2g2 *explicitly* told me that the original entry did NOT break House Rules, I must have been wrong. It happens.

So I wrote and submitted to Peer Review this, second entry, which has NOT been removed, in an effort to show the absurdity of the situation.

As though to compound the absurdity, it now appears that *this*, the bowdlerised, sanitised, censored entry has been Picked from Peer Review, but that the Italics are refusing to pass it on to a subeditor, or even acknowledge that it has been picked on the ComingUp page.

So the entry you have read, Ferretbadger, is by definition NOT the one that has been deleted. What you have read is the censored version. And as for "a proper and full explanation" - I won't hold my breath.

FB

FB

do u remember saying to me you would send me the uncensored version in email?

well heres my email if you want to...... [email protected]

cheers if you do

Diddy!

I liked the entry. It was absurd of course. Gentlemen do not use camcorders: they use film.

Julian

Film is rather difficult to edit unless you have all the splicing gear.

Ah ha, I see more clearly now, perhaps I should have taken the time to read more carefully.

Presumably they have based the objection to the origional article on the basis of the "Sexual Orientation" bit. If so I would like to know why on the edited guide they have a whole section devoted to Sex?

Whilst I understand that minors do make use of the Internet; therfore a degree of control of content is necessary, the issue we have here is clearly about censorship. If there is no transparancy about the reasoning how can we as researchers have any confidence in the process by which they take the decision to remove an article!

The suggestion that you had removed the article must be most irritating, perhaps you should write an entry about censorship on the web!

"Presumably they have based the objection to the origional article on the basis of the "Sexual Orientation" bit. If so I would like to know why on the edited guide they have a whole section devoted to Sex?"

Well, now you're asking. I would submit that an article containing tips on how to make use of a camcorder to enhance your lovelife would be of more general interest, and less likely to deprave or corrupt (the legal definition of what constitutes "obscene" here in the UK) than would an article on, say, testicle cuffs. And yet, the article on testicle cuffs remains.

"Whilst I understand that minors do make use of the Internet; therfore a degree of control of content is necessary, the issue we have here is clearly about censorship."

Precisely. It's not as if the original was *that* explicit, anyway, otherwise it would never have got through Peer Review and gone on the Front Page - the staff of h2g2 may be many things, but they're not complete idiots.

"If there is no transparancy about the reasoning how can we as researchers have any confidence in the process by which they take the decision to remove an article!"

Answer: we can't. And you're assuming there was "reasoning" involved - I'm not. And you're assuming there was a "process" involved - I'm not.

"The suggestion that you had removed the article must be most irritating, perhaps you should write an entry about censorship on the web!"

I would - but I expect they'd delete it.

FB

RE: "I would - but I expect they'd delete it."

As far as I can see, this is a very important issue for not just h2g2, but also the web in general. If people who feel strongly about freedom of expression do not stand up for that freedom then we will so find it no longer exists.

I am not advocating a situation where anybody can just say whatever they like, I understand the reasons why this is not possible. However I think we need to have transparency and consistency in the process, that way If everyone knows the reasons no bad blood or ill feeling is created. So come on whom ever made this decision, lets have a bit of transparency. You know FB this is something which all of us researchers should stand up for.

Hello all,

Sorry for the delay on this one. I personally loved the original - I even emailed my girlfriend the URL for it - but the decision, as you all know, was forced upon us. In this instance, we are simply following instructions from above. As for the admittedly watered-down version, well, due to the nature of us effectively being told to get rid of the original by our superiors, we're having to be a bit careful here. Of course, we don't want to upset the author or the rest of you in PR, but equally, we have to carefully examine the 'new' entry in light of the fact that Editorial Policy insisted the original be removed. Has the new entry changed enough? When all's said and done, does it still imply making a home-made porno? It's a tricky one - hence, the time we're having to take to come to an agreed decision. The office today is completely bereft of Editorial Staff save for myself (Anna was in this morning) but when we're all togther, we'll discuss it further and come to a conclusion and let you know as soon as we can.

Thank you all for your patience.

Sam

Thanks for posting Sam, but that still doesn't really address the reasons _why_ EP is (now?) different from EG guidelines.

We (including the italics if they haven't) should be able to see these alternative rules in order to be able to avoid breaking them inadvertantly. Anything else is just silly. Ignorance of the law being no excuse really only works if there is plausible access to a copy of the law or it is self-evident. Since the original article was passed by the h2g2 staff, whatever these additional rules are they cannot be self-evident and were presumably not available to the staff to check either.

Is all h2g2 content now going to have to be passed by these mysterious EP people as if the h2g2 team were no longer fit to make such judgements?

"I personally loved the original - I even emailed my girlfriend the URL for it"

A pertinent question - does the universal approval for this entry count for nothing? How many people have liked this entry enough to actually say so? I'd put the number above thirty, I think. I could even give you a link to a weblog unconnected with h2g2 where the author recommends it as a "good quick read".

And conversely - have there been any actual COMPLAINTS about the original in the two months it was visible? Have there been any complaints about the new version in the month it's been up?

"- but the decision, as you all know, was forced upon us. In this instance, we are simply following instructions from above."

I voss only followink ordass.

"As for the admittedly watered-down version, well, due to the nature of us effectively being told to get rid of the original by our superiors, we're having to be a bit careful here."



"Of course, we don't want to upset the author or the rest of you in PR"

Of course...

"but equally, we have to carefully examine the 'new' entry in light of the fact that Editorial Policy insisted the original be removed. Has the new entry changed enough?"

Serious question: how can you even BEGIN to address that question unless Editorial Policy describe clearly and unambiguously why the deleted the original?

The way I see it, you're being asked to read their minds, and the only sensible thing you can do is refuse. Put up the new version, and if they take against that - no problem, I'll write another. And I'll keep ON writing new versions until we finally work out what their problem is. I'm a patient man...

"When all's said and done, does it still imply making a home-made porno?"

Well, duh. Which is, as I said, an activity which is not dangerous, illegal, immoral, condemned by religion, "liable to corrupt or deprave", or as far as I can see in any way questionable, and certainly less so than an article on, just to pick one at random, testicle cuffs.

I might also point out that that comment applies equally to the original.

"Thank you all for your patience."

You're welcome...

FB

RE: The post by Sam.

Sam the point which is worrying is, on what grounds were you told by your superiors to remove the article. If we knew what rules were broken and why there would be no controversy, however the situation seems to be that the is no verifiable reason why the entry was removed. If transparant and verifiable reasons for the removal were given then I personally would not be so unhappy about this.

The moral of the story is, come on powers that be, Tell us WHY?

Hello all,

"Serious question: how can you even BEGIN to address that question [whether the Entry has changed enough] unless Editorial Policy describe clearly and unambiguously why the deleted the original?"

Absolutely. We can't. This is what we're stressing - it wasn't our decision and we, as you are, are waiting to hear more details regarding why the decision was taken.

"Put up the new version, and if they take against that - no problem, I'll write another"

I'm sorry, we can't do this. When h2g2 resources are stretched, as they are, the only practical thing we can do is to wait for the response from Editorial Policy and then apply a policy consistent with that. Reinstating Entries and then removing them is unlikely to help the situation and could be extremely time-consuming and frustrating for all involved.

I would just like to emphasise that we too are keen to get some clarity in order to resolve this situation and will let you know the minute we have some new information.

Thanks very much,

Natalie

Since you ignored my first question, Natalie, here it is again:

"A pertinent question - does the universal approval for this entry count for nothing? How many people have liked this entry enough to actually say so? I'd put the number above thirty, I think. I could even give you a link to a weblog unconnected with h2g2 where the author recommends it as a "good quick read".

And conversely - have there been any actual COMPLAINTS about the original in the two months it was visible? Have there been any complaints about the new version in the month it's been up?"

Much time and effort was spent getting the BBC to agree to reactive moderation for h2g2. So I ask again - how many actual complaints from readers did you receive, either by email or by "yikes" button, against the original entry?

And if, as I suspect, the answer is "none at all", or even one or two, what justification CAN there be for hiding it? I'm all ears... after over a MONTH waiting patiently for an answer...

Please don't ignore this question again. Thanks.



"Put up the new version, and if they take against that - no problem, I'll write another"

I'm sorry, we can't do this."

Yes, you can. If you WON'T, that's another matter. The fact remains that you CAN, if you want to.

"When h2g2 resources are stretched, as they are, the only practical thing we can do is to wait for the response from Editorial Policy and then apply a policy consistent with that."

I disagree. If they refuse - as they have so far - to communicate with you, your *responsibility* as providers of content is to provide the content, unless and until they tell you not to, AND TELL YOU WHY. Otherwise, you are simply redundant. If Editorial Policy are the only people who can greenlight content on h2g2, then Natalie, you and everyone other Italic on h2g2 is a waste of the licence fee and EP can damn well come and run the site themselves. If you're NOT redundant - it's your responsibility to make a decision, isn't it? Who is in charge here?

"Reinstating Entries and then removing them is unlikely to help the situation and could be extremely time-consuming and frustrating for all involved."

I disagree, again. I'm not asking you to reinstate the original, I'm asking you to acknowledge that this new, bowdlerised and censored version has been adjudged by the Community to be suitable for the Edited Guide. It's been Peer Reviewed, and Picked. Your refusal to even acknowledge that seems perverse. If Editorial Policy want the new version removed, well, in its unedited form it's been up for over a month, and they've not objected yet... why not let it get Edited. And if they object AFTER that, how would it be different than what is happening right now? You didn't waste ANY time deleting my work last time, and it doesn't (from this angle) seem to have wasted much of your time in the month since I asked for an explanation.

So how about letting your much vaunted Editorial Process that you're all so proud of get on and do what it does with this entry which has already been picked?

"I would just like to emphasise that we too are keen to get some clarity in order to resolve this situation and will let you know the minute we have some new information."

Thanks - but we don't NEED new information to put the new version in the Edited Guide.

You're either in charge of the site, in which case there's no reason why you shouldn't allow this entry to move forward through the process (since NOBODY has complained about it) and allow it on the Front Page and into the Edited Guide until someone explicitly objects...

...or you're not in charge of the site. In which case, you're a waste of my licence fee and I seriously question why they're paying you.

Please note: I'm not being personal, Natalie - this entire reply is directed at the *office of the Editor* - not you. I'd say precisely the same thing to Mark or anyone else in your position.

FB

Hello FB,

My intention wasn't to ignore you but to keep the conversation focused around the Entry this conversation is attached to.

However, just to emphasise: certain decisions on h2g2 will occasionally be made by other departments within the organisation. They might take longer to reply than we do. In the meantime, we would be grateful if you could remove this from Peer Review.

As we have previously stated, we will let you know when we have any further information.

Thanks,

Natalie