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

Jimi,

I appreciate your frustation, and I admit that my return to h2g2 was only recent, so the moderation is still a bit of a shock to me.

But I don't think we should "chill out", as this will only be seen as a willingness to submit to the harsh and oppressive conditions of the new, BBC-controlled guide.

I agree that the Italics should be given a chance to get on with their work, but that doesn't mean we should stop talking about moderation. As Fragilis said in response to your "invasion" of the Zaphodista page, the Zaphodistas allow the anti-moderation debate to take place in a sort of sub-culture while the Italics can comfortably ignore it.

I don't think they *do* ignore it, but confining the debate to certain areas allows people to voice their concerns without interrupting the flow of the guide. I assume your complaints were about a fervour in posting to all areas of the guide that I did not experience, and I can understand your annoyance. But I think the Zaphodistas have some legitimate complaints and are a good way to keep things organised - as long as we keep things restrained.

I would like to ask you to consider joining the Zaphodistas - I'm not sure what your opinions are, but if you believe in:

* reactive rather than proactive moderation,
* the right to post in foreign languages,
* the right to post images,
* the right to link to outside pages,
* the right to swear in (at least) journal entries, or
* a guide that is owned by the community and not beholden to the whims of some BBC executive,

or at least some of these things, then I think there is room in the Zaphodistas for you.

In fact, I think you are a "voice of reason" so to speak, who would calm things down and keep them in perspective.

Keep fighting (but do it nicely),
Rob.

Before I say anything can I say I agree with your very last point "Keep fighting but do it nicely"

But...(and you know that was coming)... as the researcher who asked Jimi to post this forum post as an entry can I ask a few simple questions.

If you were a new reseacher, joining since Rupert, or if this was a brand new site, would you object to any of the things you are objecting to? Personally I wouldn't. I may question the reason for not having links in fora but on home pages, and after having got the answer (That it is only to see how things go and maybe reviewed) I would relax and enjoy the show.

Has anyone actually canvased opinion amoungst those joining the fun post-Rupert?


I simply do no recognize the "the harsh and oppressive conditions " you speak of. Sure there are fustrations and anomalies but I can live with them.

As to "reactive rather than proactive moderation" I'd rather this than pre-moderation-where all posts are vetted before being visible, a very real possibility in the run up to an election.

And of course I have to prefer any H2G2, even if it was as bad as you describe, than no H2G2 which was days if not hours away before the doors were shut.

Keep fighting nicely

ChawkE

If I was a post-Rupert newcomer, I can't be sure if I'd have joined. I guess my opinions are coloured by the fact that I was around pre-Rupert, but then everything has to be seen in historical context, and the current conditions can only reasonably be compared with those of the past - and I prefer the h2g2 of the past.

Things might not be extremely bad, but they are worse. The thing that gets me is the way the BBC comes along and tells the community its own standards were not high enough, and that from now on it will be the final arbiter of what goes up. This is ridiculous - the community-based moderation of the past was far better. Even swearing was limited, as it was seen as antisocial and treated as such by the community. I don't see that the BBC should be enforcing the rules so strictly when the community makes its own judgments on what's reasonable.

And that's why I don't like proactive moderation. Under the BBC, an entry will be moderated within an hour. This is, effectively, censorship. The old system, the reactive system, meant that the community judged what was acceptable. We don't want racist, sexist, bigoted or plagiarised material on the guide, and we're quite capable of judging that for ourselves, thankyou very much.

I hope this doesn't sound personal. I just get a bit worked up about these things. You're entitled to your views, of course, I just wondered if I couldn't persuade you that the Zaphodistas aren't such a bad lot. And we are doing some constructive things - I've started a campaign to get ASCII art in use on people's pages instead of graphics. http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A541298 Sure, it's couched in revolutionary terms, but that's just the role-play. I think it's actually a practical step.

Cheers,
Thanks for putting up with me,
Rob.

Rob

Cool, we both have our points of view, the only problem is that occasionally, and this does not refer to what I have read ofrom you the "revolutionary terms" can slipp from role-play to offensive or at least become bluured.

But keep up the good work on the ASCII art.

ChawkE

Yeah,

I have noticed that some people get a bit carried away, but hey - don't we all sometimes? They're just upset that things changed without their input. Maybe it's inevitable, maybe not, but I can understand why people get worked up.

But remember, the posts of a few nutters doesn't mean we're all bad... maybe you'd still like to join (he hopes...)?

Rob.

Actually it *was* the early tone that caused me a great deal of concern.

And sure, I'd like the unlimited freedom of the old days again, but that's simply not practical in light of the BBC's positions. However, I am very sure that the itallics will continue to erode at those restrictions over time (look at the erosion which has already occurred over song lyrics and other copyrighted material!).

My main point was that having a 'revolution' with actual 'revolutionary behaviour' was counterproductive to their cause and damaging to the entire community. Geurrila tactics discussed like posting swears in forums to give the moderators lots to do is one example of this 'nonsense' to which I was referring.

And really, while the community makes this site special - can we really say we 'own it'? This site is owned by the BBC and they set the rules. If we don't like them, we can strive for change through the management the BBC has placed in charge of the site (the itallics) or we can vote with our feet.

Personally I think Mark, Peta, Abi, Anna, Ashley, Jim, Sam and Sri are doing a great job representing our interests with the 'suits' at the BBC. I'm willing to wait and give them the time they need to work the changes we'd like to see.

But that's just my view.

Cheers!

- X

I'm speaking as someone who didn't descover h2g2 until after the BBC. I'm also speaking as a young person who considers her morals very important to her, and increasingly hard to hold on to. In the short time I've been here, I think I have read more about the horrors of the moderation than actualy entries.

I have, however, read a lot of kind, helpful things about the way the site is run. I feel like rules against swearing, porn, racism, and other types of bigotry are positive influences on the people visiting this site. It was one of the things that attracted me to it. There are few places I have found on the internet that hold themselves to such standards. I have read many articles on h2g2 that were simply hilarious, without having to swear or be particularly offensive. I've also read some journal entries, and been in places where rule exceptions have been mentioned, and feel that swearing would only distract from what was being said.

I understand the views of those limiting graphics and links, and I'm sure that is something that will be worked out with time. It is important to remember that taking things a step at a time will give this site the foundation it needs to continue to flourish.

Thank You, I asked Jimi to post his forum post as this entry and was certain that all post BBC researchers would see h2g2 as such a step above most other web sites despite and indeed because of moderation that they wouldn't have many problems with it.

Continue to enjoy it, I know I still do, 90% of my web time is here, expanding my knowledge of how other people think and about subjects I never thought existed.

Have Fun.

ChawkE

I agree - have a good time, and if you want to, ignore this whole moderation argument.

The only thing I'll point out is that pre-BBC, there was always rules against offensive material. It's just that it wasn't considered offensive until somebody actually said they were offended by it. Now, it gets ruled out regardless of whether somebody would actually take offense. It's not *that* big a deal, but I still don't think things are any better now than they were.

Oh well.

Since 13 March, I have had one posting moderated (I put a url in a forum by accident) and I had one entry referred to Peta because of the use of a small snatch of song lyric.

In both instances I didn't feel censored.

Granted I was surprised about the entry, but Peta wrote me a funny note about the whole thing and promptly restored the entry which is now on its way to the front page.

So in 105 days (at the time of writing) I've only managed to bump into the moderation system twice - yet we spent a lot of mental energy debating how limiting moderation would be.

Funny, I didn't and still don't feel limited in the least.

I've been moderated a few times, often with no explanation. I've had my user page taken down because of an ASCII image and because I'm an ACE - even though I resigned weeks previously. I'm no longer able to use the testuser function on my page, I've had several entries moderated. I've also shown elsewhere the hypocrisy of the moderation - elsewhere on the BBC there are offensive jokes. I'm no longer allowed to use images on my site, I'm no longer allowed to post urls in fora - even if they are called through a BBC hosted cgi script. The whole thing is really quite annoying and has detracted significantly from my experience of h2g2. Over the last couple of weeks I've debated leaving altogether, it's only the community that keeps me here.

Thanks Jimi, I've only just spotted this. It's good get positive feedback.

Thanks, and I know I can speak for the whole team on this.

LOL!

What makes you think I still feel this way?



.



I'm still amazed by the amount of counterproductive garbage that gets hurled at the Towers. You guys deserve more s than can safely be given over a low bandwidth line.

Hang in there!