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

Entry: The h2g2 Profanity Filter and Offensive Words - A46464500
Author: Merry Anne - U13729717

This is as good as I can get it alone, so your input would be much appreciated.

Trawling through all the old announcements and threads (when it was still possible to reply to announcements) was quite fun. Looking at the most recent discussion leaves me somewhat surprised, though.

I enjoyed this, and appreciated the reasoning behind it. You've made some good points about our use of language, as well.

Questions of online censorship come up on a daily basis in my work (in fact, I probably have another flame email on the subject waiting in my inbox), so I found the discussion useful.

On h2g2, I have had experience with my posts being blocked by the profanity filter. This is odd because I hardly ever swear, almost never in print.

This has led to jokes. The people I talk to have discovered that we cannot discuss a certain breed of cat without circumscription. It is a large cat with an attractively striped tail which causes it to be semantically linked to another animal of the genus Procyon.

It is also impossible to discuss doowop music by any other spelling. Tidiness turned out to be another minefield: 'spicnspan' requires careful typing.

And I will preview this post before sending it.

I have one proofreading inquiry.

I ask this because I am often confused by the difference in British and American usage of plural verbs for collective nouns:

Is it 'the majority of Researchers *was*', or 'the majority of Researchers *were*'?

I know that in US style, it is 'the jury *has* decided', while in the UK it is 'the jury *have* decided'.

Over here, we would say, 'the majority of Researchers were...'

Thanks for the read, good stuff.

Thank you for reading and commenting. Thanks for spotting the majority was vs were, too. It should be plural (and it's something no spell check will ever find). I've corrected it.

Ms GB

I liked this.

My only personal encounter with the profanity filter was when I quoted George Orwell in a conversation. He used the word n*gg*r ironically. Anyway, apparently it is impossible to quote a great writer using difficult words with skill.

The italics ended up in the conversation but apparently context was irrelevant.



PS: I don't think you can search for the blanked out versions either. Mind you the search function is fairly flakey.

Very nice summary

A couple of things...

I've seen the PF referred to in conversations as the 'filther' , though I can't remember which h2g2 worthy coined the term.

"...the thought that they could no longer swear at their heart's desire"

Is this deliberate, or do you mean "to their heart's desire"? If I swore at my heart's desire, she'd probably thump me

"possibly due to a lack of Italic presence"

I'd suggest defining 'Italic', perhaps in a footnote, so the Entry stands alone for readers who aren't familiar with h2g2-isms.


My only run-in with the filther was regarding the name of an ancient Anglo-Saxon ruler, often referred to (apparently incorrectly) as 'Canute'...

I've just checked and the quote was on the Rudyard Kipling edited entry and I commented on the *ing rather than was a victim.

Is it worth dividing the opening paragraph into two. It will make it easier to get into the text.

Thanks very much, both. I've split the first paragraph, I agree, it's easier on the eyes.

I had only mentioned PF because I use it as abbreviation in the entry, but I have now changed the footnote and added that it is often referred to as 'filther' in conversations (although I only know TiT using it, but I've often seen him use it, and maybe it has spread). If you think PF doesn't need to be explained, I'll just refer to the filther.

at vs to:

You must excuse, I've written, rewritten and restructured the whole entry that often before submitting it, I'm afraid there'll be more such things in it.

Added a footnote to explain who the Italics are.

I remember the problems with Canute in the Cheshire entry.
I think I've only once fallen foul of the filther, but I don't recall which word triggered it. The trouble is, that you don't get any message (from what I recall), you just can't post, so even if you've heard about the filter, it can take you a while to realise, and then another while to find the 'offender'. It's worse for new people and those who aren't aware of the filther.

I wonder if the people who run the filter know the difference between profanity and obscenity?

I guess in these times of PC they just play it safe.

Or what a 'racial' insult is?

I am sometimes confronted with the complaint, 'They are making racial insults. The British are insulting the French.'

Seriously.

The complaints I get to hear IRL are of a completely different nature, nothing to do with language.

Oh, these have to do with modding. I am talking about an online game, played at an international level, with insults being hurled such as 'your country makes lousy cars. Well, you invaded Poland...'

This is an interesting Entry you've created here

Just a couple of nitpicks

<> should have a comma after the year too

<> should be <>

Thank you.

I disagree about the date.

I'm not sure I should correct a direct quote (there is a mistake in the last quote, too).

What's the procedure for this?

Ah, I know that one.

If a direct quote has a mistake in it, you write [sic] after the mistake.

In square brackets.

As in: President George W Bush said, 'Is [sic] our children learning?'

It lets people know you were smarter than that, and prevents you from getting emails with the word 'nitpick' in them.

This is thought provoking.

I've seen some good pieces of writing on the AWW which would fall foul of this rule. I don't know how you can depict a character who uses f***ing every few words without using at least some of the language.

Thanks, dmitri, I have added the [sic] as suggested, although it looks a bit pretentious, doesn't it?

Thank you, mvp. Personally, I'm not a fan of reading literature which uses this sort of language very often; I think there are other ways to depict such a character, but maybe these ways are not strong enough at times, so you certainly have a point.

There is always the presidential [expletive deleted].

Pretension upon pretension...

I'd just like to say that while I've not really been all that fussed by the profanity filter debate, it's great to see an Entry in PR that internalises information a bit. By that I mean it's nice for h2g2 to be the subject again, we need to inform ourselves of ourselves sometimes so we can improve things

I found the piece easy to read, and again my experiences are limited to it. Seeing as you've written about h2g2, it might actually be pertinent to reference actual uses or anonymous examples as such of how it has worked and not worked. Normally we don't link to h2g2 threads in an EG Entry, but this might be the perfect excuse to bend those rules a bit

Next we need someone to write about the U16 h2g2 User Ban...