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

Oh, I should make it clear that when I say 'we' I mean the BBC in its widest, most general sense. As Sprout says, the powers that be at BBCi could decide to can h2g2 at any point, just like they did with Get Writing.

Quote; "If the BBC's Charter is renewed in 2006 (which it is expected to be) then will continue to exist in more-or-less our current form until 2016".


That's good news (if I understand it correctly)

,...

Privatised by whom?

Well, for the bits that I was talking about that have been privatised, BBC management (whether under pressure from the Government or not) decided that it was better off letting outside companies run some of its non-core businesses - i.e. the bits of the BBC that aren't directly connected with programme-making.

There's two sides to this. On the one hand, why should be the BBC be spending its time on managing the buildings and doing the maintenance and that kind of thing when it can employ a specialist company to do it for it and concentrate on what it's good at, which is making programmes and ace websites. On the other, it seems to be the same people who are doing the actual jobs at ground level and they are paid the same (or slightly less) money, they're just managed and employed by some company somewhere who's making a profit out of them. Which the BBC weren't.

Also, people like to work for the BBC. It's the kind of thing you believe in, that puts a smile on your face when you can point to it and say '"I'm part of that." If you're a cleaner or a tea person, I'm sure it's a lot nice to say that you work *for* the BBC than you do the cleaning or make the tea *at* the BBC.

And in the past, it's not been unknown for people to join the BBC in the post room or whatever and then from there get themselves into a programme-making department. Because they were already working for the BBC, and it was just a question of getting transferred. It's a lot harder now when you work for a completely different company.

Like there was an Italian bloke that used to work on the coffee cart outside the Sports News area where I work. Really nice bloke, always friendly and chatty, and more to the point he really loved his sport and knew his football inside out. I'm pretty sure that in the old days, someone would have taken a chance on him and he'd have done a good job for someone somewhere in the department.

Didn't happen. He went back to Italy in the end.

But I digress. Yes, the BBC is likely to have its charter renewed for another 10 years in 2006 and is likely to continue in its current guise as a Public Service Broadcaster funded by public subscription by the licence fee. This means that there will be no advertising on the BBC, and programmes and websites will be produced on the basis of whether they satisfy the needs of British audiences, not whether money can be made out of them.

Which is the main thing that makes the BBC special and different, and is one of many reasons why I'm proud to work for it.

Quote;Also, people like to work for the BBC. It's the kind of thing you believe in, that puts a smile on your face when you can point to it and say '"I'm part of that." If you're a cleaner or a tea person, I'm sure it's a lot nice to say that you work *for* the BBC than you do the cleaning or make the tea *at* the BBC.



That's a very smart one

Quote;

"But I digress. Yes, the BBC is likely to have its charter renewed for another 10 years in 2006 and is likely to continue in its current guise as a Public Service Broadcaster funded by public subscription by the licence fee. This means that there will be no advertising on the BBC, and programmes and websites will be produced on the basis of whether they satisfy the needs of British audiences, not whether money can be made out of them.

Which is the main thing that makes the BBC special and different, and is one of many reasons why I'm proud to work for it". End quote.



In The Netherlands we have the most complex structure for the public TV and radio. It is for 70& funded by the Dutch. I won't explain. I believe that about 5% knows the exact facts. I don't.

What I dó know is this;
We still have TV-groups, based on religion/filosofy (Yes, you are entering the world of Kafka. In the core we are véry conservative).
So we have a protestant one, catholic and evangelical one. Islamic and humanistic and buddhistic onces. For the young ones, the 50+ ones, etc.
All based on the number of paying members.

BUT, we álso have a "public" one, who is responsable for the news,national happenings when the queens daughter marries, etc.
And it makes a lot of progressive programs about movies,arts,dance,history, etc.
We can be very proud of it.

It has the same level as the BBC 2, but far more smaller.No commercials in the programs, only between one program and another, like all the others. The BBC doesn't have commercials at áll.
These programs will be blown up when the gouvernement proposals arrive and it ís arriving.


In that new organisation, one of the few things we can be proud of will be wiped off by just wiping it off..........
Parliament has agreed that it will be removed from this planet.
Not even sold.
No alternative. Just a few programs must survive for only 5 years.



Finally, I'm glad with the inside facts in the former postings.
Because of my love for the BBC and it's websites like H2G2 we regularly need to be clear and honest about the websites and how the public enjoys it or not; can find it, or not, etc. etc.

Oh, well I'm an American in the U.S. and the folks and I we liked to watch, BBC but my TV station/digital cable provider stopped carrying it... or we lost it or something. I'm glad that there are websites for it. Lots of things that are smart and funny or and odd. Though provoking... perhaps.

One thing I'd note:

ANYBODY can change an entry at Wikipedia. All you need is an account. Hence, Wiki entries can be hijacked. Plus, it CAN be inaccurate, sometimes. Here at H2G2, we don't have that problem. Hence, lending yet another point on the scoreboard for H2G2. :D

Personally, I feel that the two can co-exist.

The main reason, I feel, is that Hootoo has the respectability totally unearned by being a Beeb sub-site.

Then there's the fact that the Edited Guide has the peer-review process and only registered members may edit articles - Wikipedia allows anyone from anywhere (even without an account) to edit articles and add whatever he/she desires (from real information all the way down to FUD).

I'm assuming that, upon BBC 2.0's launch, Hootoo will be even further-integrated into the Beeb online network, giving it more exposure and getting more factual articles and encouraging even more knowledgeable persons to join in.

Just my thoughts.

'Course it doesn't. In fact, Wikipedia can be inaccurate, at times. Due to our peer process, H2G2 tends to get its facts straight.

Wikipedia is also going off-line these days with lots of editions,
but they are feeling the pressure of rivals, because wikipedia is not that trustworthy any longer, although very populair and in 251 languages.

Cofounder Larry Sanger has started now his own "wikipedia" = Citizendium, and has very high standards for its publications.

Now there's even a "biblical" wikipedia = "Conservapedia".

Stephen Colbert (The Colpert report-TV) has become "persona non grata" at Wikipedia, because of his comments at TV.

Accidently I just did read about it in a Dutch national newspaper ; "De Volkskrant".

lol,
I like some of the disin/unformation parodies of it now that are kicking around. Things like uncyclopedia for example.

At least h2g2 has this flavor of whimsy and of... well, it's a tad eccentric, but also has a certain character that I think some of these other online encyclopedias would have kind of a hard time trying to replicate.

Actually, as a follow-up to what I posted earlier, I think that Hootoo and Wikipedia differ most of all when it comes to the sciences. For instance, compare our article on calculus (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A13199709) with Wikipedia's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus).

Wikipedia's is fairly ridiculous and hard to understand because it isn't written in the somewhat humourous and playful tone that most, if not all, Hootoo edited entries are written in.

However, Wikipedia has far more and wide-ranging science articles that are harder to understand because they are written, so to speak, from the expert's mindset, that is that everyone understands what the smeg they're talking about.

And Hootoo has far less (and more consolidated) articles that are easier (and even more fun) to read and understand, making information more accessible.

So, to reinstate my position, I think Hootoo and Wikipedia would probably have to coexist. Lord knows I've used both of them for assignments.