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

I don't agree with much of the previous criticism of this piece. If it was called - 'The European Constitution debate of 2005 - a summary of the arguments for', then I could not see a problem.

The BBC neutrality point is a complete red herring. If I write an article on 'Winston Churchill's finest moments' would you insist that I added a section on the time he advocated machine gunning strikers, just to add balance? If I wrote one on 'great things to do with courgettes', should I add bad things to do with courgettes as well?

It is a historical record of the arguments for, and stands on its own. If you want the arguments against, why don't you write the article?

sprout

The problem is that whilst you can write articles about Churchill and how great (or otherwise) he was, because there is well researched, factual information which you can use to support your entry, there is no such information to support a supposition that voting 'Yes' is a good idea. The vote hasn't happened yet, so therefore we do not know what the immediate effects of voting 'Yes' would be. Therefore the only arguments for or against are opinion and speculation, as they are before all elections. You can write articles about Churchill, as he is dead, and therefore doing so will not change today's political process. You cannot say the same about the vote on the EU constitution, since its outcome is not decided and anything written here could change the position of one or more persons. As has been mentioned here before, the BBC has rules on this and I believe it is charter-bound to uphold them here and everywhere else within its domain.

You can write whatever you like about courgettes since they are vegetables, not political concepts.

Sorry, I think all of that is completely wrong.

1) Peer Review is (thankfully) not the facts and and nothing but the facts. Articles can have a 'line' on an issue, and do not have to be encyclopaedic.

2) The BBC's neutrality obligations are strictly time limited and restricted. Ican, a sister site to hootoo, exists so that people can CAMPAIGN on issues such as the constitution - never mind just list the arguments for!

3) Any number of things might change the opinions of people or persons. If I note in my review of Churchill that he was one of the first politicians to advocate greater European unity, that might convince someone to vote yes or no. The BBC publishes the news every night - if it might influence someone's politics, according to your logic, they should play some nice lift music...

4) A number of the elements of Martine's article are factual. The Constitution does a number of things - whether you like them or not, is the subjective element.

sprout

But the issue is not whether you are allowed to say if you think the constitution is a good thing or not. No-one is suggesting it is. Nobody is going to come on here and say that martine shouldn't be allowed to say whatever she likes about the EU Constitution vote, me least of all. The problem is BALANCE. The campaigning site you mentioned will be allowed because it affords equal opportunity to all sides. This is not the case with this entry, since it is not a balanced reflection on the issues surrounding the vote. As I said, the BBC is charter bound to provide balanced coverage of votes and elections and cannot be seen to be taking sides, which is why parties such as the BNP get party political broadcasts in the same way as the major parties - because you get airtime according to the number of seats you contest in the election.

Saying that if I want to supply balance I should write a piece from a different perspective isn't the point either. I'm not interested in writing another article, and the perceived bias in the piece isn't my point. My point is that I don't think it follows the entry criteria for the guide, and I therefore think it should be changed if the author wants it to go in.

Nope. Still doesn't work for me.

Show me one of the hootoo rules for the edited guide that Martine infringes and I might be more impressed. Nowhere in the rules does it say that you have to cover both sides of the argument in every single article.

You are conflating general BBC charter rules and much more specific hootoo rules taken in application of the charter - in my view, wrongly.

sprout

Bonjour all,

Sacred blue! It seems a long while since I posted to PR!

May I just say it's great to have a cross-channel perspective on h2g2!

Merci Martine.

I have only skimmed through this entry, but the debate here seems to be more on principle than content, so here's my :

I don't see why 'balance' is an issue when the title makes it clear that this is a resume of the 'pros'.

At the same time, it *would* be kinda good to expand this entry, or do a linked companion piece, detailing the other side of the story. Fancy the challenge, Martine?

Of course, no matter how balanced the entry is, it is certainly topical, which is kinda awkward, but I feel there are probably precedents.

Why not have a record in the EG of this kind of thing?

I'm thinking it's strange for such an informative insight to be unwanted here. To my mind, it's a good example of what the EG can do so much better than its wiki cousin.

well, back to w**k for me. Just thought I'd pop in and say my piece.

Speef

I'm not conflating anything. h2g2 is on the BBC website and so has to comply with the charter, as does everything that the BBC does, even at a distance. The fact that the guide is written by the researchers is irrelevent - as soon as something goes into the edited guide it is in effect being endorsed by the BBC as having some value or legitimacy. On entries, there is a disclaimer stating 'Please note that the BBC is not responsible for the content of any external sites listed'. It is, however, responsible for the content of Hootoo pages, which is why you can complain and get posts deleted. Everything the BBC does has to comply with the charter. Hootoo is one of those things.

Aw, that's not fair.

I've never said that I don't want anyone or anything here. I've just said that I don't think it will get in the guide in its present form and have explained my reasons why. I have then had a debate with sprout on a point of principle with regard to the BBC charter and h2g2 guide criteria, as you say.

None of this is really a debate on the quality of the article, which I think everyone would agree is very good.

I'm sorry to anyone, especially martine, who may think that I have been arguing otherwise.

I think if we wish to continue this we should perhaps move the debate elsewhere, to prevent the innocent being sucked in.

Hang on a minute, Yalson, .

It seems to me that, with or without some changes (I agree that a more explicit title would be a good change, by the way), this entry could still go on to be picked for the EG and front page glory.

Perhaps Martine will prefer to go for the post-mortem approach, in which case she may well take this out of PR before either adapting it or constructing a new entry.

But right now, I'm not convinced that anyone should be pushing too hard for this to be removed.

If there are a number of PRers who think it should, then fair enough, but at the mo I think it still looks like work in progress, nearer the pickable than the ejectable end of the spectrum.

Right, I really must get back to you-know-w**t

I agree that this shouldn't be removed, at least not now. It's a very good entry, and it would be nice to have it in the EG, but I just don't think that it can be picked this close to the election. Like I said, the editorial system here can take months. Since the referendum in France will be in two weeks, by the time this entry would make its way to the front page it would already be obsolete. It might just be best to wait two weeks until after the result of the referendum so that it'll have the benefit of knowing the outcome.

I never wanted it removed, I just thought it should be changed, for the reasons stated above. I also suggested a retrospective approach after the result a while back, too.

However, since my arguments appear to have had a rather destabilising effect on this thread, I will stop my bleating and allow other people to talk.

martine hasn't been back for a while. I hope we haven't scared her away.

Crumbs, if this is the reaction a first timer gets, then I won't bother myself. I see that the guide to Peer Review says you should check whether it's someone's first attempt post *constructive* criticism accordingly.

As far as being balanced is concerned, Martine has said she is working on the opposing view. I also quote from the disclaimer: "Most of the content on h2g2 is created by h2g2's Researchers, who are members of the public. The views expressed are theirs and unless specifically stated are not those of the BBC"

It's very disappointing to see that Martine has been jumped on and criticised so unfairly. At least SOME people have been helpful and supportive, thank goodness.

I see nothing over critical in these posts - in fact I see only suggestions how to improve the article from people who have experience of the edited guide. There is quite a lot of implied praise as everyone feels the author is capable of expanding the article, and martine herself said that a post mortem might work better.

>>Crumbs, if this is the reaction a first timer gets, then I won't bother myself. I see that the guide to Peer Review says you should check whether it's someone's first attempt post *constructive* criticism accordingly.<<

Bex, to be fair, we know a little more about the ins and outs of Peer Review than you since this appears to have been your first visit here. I don't believe that anybody here was being overly harsh. We know what sort of things get accepted and we know that this will need work. If we just came here and said, "good article" and gave no advice then we wouldn't be helping much at all.


>>As far as being balanced is concerned, Martine has said she is working on the opposing view. I also quote from the disclaimer: "Most of the content on h2g2 is created by h2g2's Researchers, who are members of the public. The views expressed are theirs and unless specifically stated are not those of the BBC"<<

Yes, but this entry is unlikely to be selected that way. It's better to have an entry that explores both the pros and cons than having two entries. It's like me writing an entry on the pros of buying a DVD player and neglecting to mention the cons. Wouldn't it be easier to have both the pros and cons in one entry?


>>It's very disappointing to see that Martine has been jumped on and criticised so unfairly. At least SOME people have been helpful and supportive, thank goodness.<<

She wasn't, we were trying to help her. Like I said, this is a well writen entry, but it needs work.

I still think an effort could have been made to point out the reviewers considered that the article would have a better chance of being picked if it had both sides of the argument, rather than implying that it was breaking the guidelines by only presenting the yes side.

IMO, it is not infringing the guidelines, as each hootoo article does not have to be encyclopaedic - it just has to be complete in the scope it selects. There are lots of examples of this in the EG.

sprout

'I still think an effort could have been made to point out the reviewers considered that the article would have a better chance of being picked if it had both sides of the argument'

I wasn't going to post on this thread again, but I feel I can say this without making anything any worse. I did actually suggest this back in post 11, and other researchers made similar suggestions both before and afterwards.

Well - we'll see tomorrow - incidently referring back to my original post - I note that French commentators are saying that it is no longer about the Constitution, but about the CAP.

ok, firstly this is a good entry - thorough on it remit.

secondly, no one has been overly harsh - you put an article in PR to try and get it into the Edited Guide. If the article stays like this, it will not get into the Guide, however good it is, and 'Peers' have been suggesting the very same. You may have to look at the Alternative Writing Workshop as an alternative because, from no fault of your own Martine, the BBC will not allow something as subjective as this into the Guide.

thirdly - the French have now voted NO, so surely this thing is obsolete in its current format... I think you should look at editing you argument down to its bare bones to make it a) historical (now that France have voted 'on'), b) more relevant to a wider European context, and c) most importantly, make it objective. True the BBC charter may be a nuisance, but entries cannot be subjective. That is to say thay cannot be from one point of view (in this case the French point of view); they cannot only support a single side of the issue (in this case the OUI campaign); and they must show a degree of evaluation and neutrality.

This is a good piece on its own and I know that I would not want to change its format to make it neutral. Unfortuantely, you have to make a decision as to whether you a) change it to try and get it into the Guide, or b) leave it alone and not be allowed to have it in the Guide.

My recommendation would be to put it in the AWW and it may find its way into The Post or one of the other 'alternative' publications.

Good luck!
Deano

Thanks to all of you. I haven't been back because I had no time to present the full case and I quite agree that the time frame was too tight, so close to the vote. I am flattered by the interest and the awful result has put things in perspective.

However, in my view, it is much more interesting to have a sort of testimony of why advocates of the yes-vote thought as they did than something that is spouted on TV day in day out on a subject that has been debated to death. I am afraid a post-mortem might be excessively boring, but I can try. Though I can only do it my way, so it may not be suitable after all.

Seriously though, I suggest all of you experts have a close look at the entry on French driving. I rest my case.

Is this entry still moving forward, or are things dead in the water? I'm not seeing any resolution from the debate above....