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

from HouseRules:
> "BBC policy is that all links on all sites are checked on a regular basis, to ensure that the BBC never links to sites which might offend its users."

Excellent. So if I mention a URL, but **DON'T LINK IT**, then BBC policy is to ignore it completely?

So there's absolutely no reason for the moderators to vape stuff like *ttp://www.bbc.co.uk, cos it ain't linked?

Great! So, umm, why are they doing so?

Because I told them to.

Come on, Lucinda you're being pedantic here. The BBC have a responsibility not to send people off to pages that are 'unsuitable'. Making a link 'not link' is just a way of posting the info without making it clickable, the info is still there to make the link isn't it?

If you went by that logic, then I couldn't give directions on how to get to anywhere - because the moderators would have to go there, check that it was 'suitable', and then approve it. Come to that, I couldn't give an ISBN number unless the moderators read the book to make sure it was suitable for young readers to read.

To my mind, there is a world of difference between providing a one-click link to a page, and providing information that people can use to get to it. It's like the difference between handing someone a loaded gun and telling them what shops sell guns.

Currently you blame the BBC Policy for having to moderate off URLs from forums (but not entries). If you're going to go further than the policy mandates, then using that excuse doesn't really hold water...

You can call it pedantic if you like... I'd say that if I'm going to be moderated I'd much prefer to know what I'm going to be moderated for *before* I write it - so getting the T&C accurate is actually really rather important.

Oh, by "anywhere", I mean physical places like, say, Harlem...

struck me that what I wrote wasn't terribly clear...

Oo. Tricky point, about which you will probably see much, Peta.

Lucinda, are you okay with the idea of your posting being checked for URLs or not? If you aren't, say you aren't and start a discussion on it. If you are, then I think trying to circumvent them is a bit childish, if I may say so.

Not that I think that is really your point, don't get me wrong. I read your point not as an intent on circumvention, just trying to explore the limits of the TC and censorship thing for the sake of clarity. Am I right?

Getting some kind of clarity would clearly be in order. When the rules say one thing and the moderators do another, I have to say it annoys me. After going to the trouble of wading through the legalese, to find that it bears little relation to reality is frustrating at the least.

But that's not my point, really.

With swearing, if I want to express my dislike of something I can say "It's extremely stupid", rather than "It's f*****g stupid" - I can express the same thoughts in a different way, so it's no biggie.

If I wanted to express an opinion that, say, all white men named Jimmy were abhorrent, then I'd be unable to do so in any form - but that's ok, because by and large I don't hold many such opinions. Nor do I feel overly sorry about those who do. They can say the same thing elsewhere.

If I want to provide a URL to someone, I am unable to do so in any form, short of creating an entry specifically for the purpose. Unlike the swearing ban, this significantly limits my expressive power and ability to converse normally. From the guide's point of view, this makes me unable to point people at additional info they might want to look at in relation to an entry in progress, and vica versa with others helping me on mine.

I do understand that h2g2 can't wantonly compromise the BBCs policies. So, no links in forums. OK - fine. I don't like it, but I can live with it. But, I don't understand why h2g2 wants to go further than the rest of the BBC in this limitation of dialogue, and what possible purpose their might be in doing so.

I also feel that the slippery slope/fine line problem will kick in with a veangance here. So far, it seems that I'm not allowed to pass by missing off or starring the http://www. And I'm not allowed to pass by missing off or starring the .com

Seems to me that I'm no longer allowed to mention the place that amazonian stuff comes from. Or mention the name of the many, *many* .com companies which put ".com" in their name. "What company is the AMZN ticker code?" "Sorry, answering that question is against the T&C."

Why webpages get extra harsh treatment is beyond me. I'm allowed to post the full address of a strip club, or give the phone number of one of those dodgy sex lines, but I can't mention the URL of the h2g2chat forum on yahoo, even unlinked. Does this make *any* sense??

On more than one occasion people have asked: do you know where I can get info on a particular subject and I have been able to point them to a relevant website. If this is truly to be a 'guide' then not allowing references to the single largest information resource in the world seems to be completely counter to the whole point of the thing. It seems to me that the Beeb are basically pooping their pants at the thought of all this unrestricted freedom. No corporation however benign will ever be happy with freedom. But please why can't the censorship system allow for the checking of url's? It can allow large resources to go on the checking for naughty words and unacceptable thoughts, but not on links? Please reconsider this policy urgently, otherwise we will lose an important aspect of the thing before we start again.

Now you're not exploring the rules anymore, or being nitpicky.
You're just making sense.

"But, I don't understand why h2g2 wants to go further than the rest of the BBC in this limitation of dialogue, and what possible purpose their might be in doing so."

I'm not sure what you mean. In what way do we go further than the rest of the BBC? No BBC sites allow any URLs, directions towards URLs, contact details or anything else at all in any of their user-generated content; anything containing these details are simply failed and removed, straight off, end of story.

What we're doing is trialling a potential change in these rules: we are allowing URLs in Guide Entries. No other BBC sites allow URLs in anything user-generated. So we're actually being a lot more adventurous than other BBC sites, which is why it's a trial.

The reason for the limits are, as I explain on this page, manpower. Also, if h2g2 changes the rules, these new rules have to be applied to *all* BBC sites, so it's not just manpower on checking h2g2 links, it's manpower across the entire BBC. I understand that these changes do invite pedantry, nit-picking and genuine concerns, but the reasons behind them are all logical. Honest!

Change feels odd, but inside the Towers we fully understand the reasons for these changes, and they do make sense within the framework of the BBC. It may take prodding for us to remember that the Community doesn't live in the same four walls as us, so do keep pestering us when things appear to be a bit odd.

So... tell me again. How is it that h2g2 is going further than the rest of the BBC?

I know it's the long way round, but if you were desperate to point someone in the direction of a relevant site or whatever, the URL problem could be solved by creating an entry with the off-site URL contained within, and then posting the internal link to the entry in the necessary forum. A little long-winded, sure, but is this not a solution? Or is this disgraceful loop-hole exploitation?

Given then the Moderators will ostensibly be checking any and all content within an hour of posting, any unsuitable URLs should be swiftly weeded out (or swifter still if anyone Yikes!es).

How's this fit into the issue here?

As I thought the BBC is rather concerned about this, but good to see that you ARE fighting the fight with the suits. it is absolutely then down to us as a community and particularly the volunteers to police the use of URL's because if the trial is deemed a success perhaps common sense will prevail. If the BBC truly DOES want a thriving internet community under its wing it is going to have to address this issue. Basically until there is any kind of case law in existence about the internet in the UK and the Beeb can be clear where it stands it is going to err on the side of caution.
But please don't let up on the fact that this restriction seriously hampers the free flow of information. In other words it runs directly contrary to a fundamental principle of the internet.

"What we're doing is trialling a potential change in these rules"


So does this mean that if the trial is a success, then URLs will be allowed in the forums as well as in guide entries? If so then that will make the Scouts work in Peer Review a lot easier than the current restrictions allow, unless of coursethe Peer Review forum also is given the same level of freedom.

According to the House Rules, BBC Policy requires all linked URLs to be checked regularly, and this is the reason for the URL ban. Now, there are three ways I can see to resolve what is written with what actually happens.

1) The BBC has a different meaning of words like "link" and "URL" from the rest of the English-speaking world. Solution: buy the BBC a dictionary. :-p

2) The House Rules are oversimplifying BBC Policy. Solution: rewrite or footnote the House Rules so they bear some semblance of accuracy.

3) h2g2 is going further than the rest of the BBC. Solution: Shoot Mark Moxon (with a water pistol, taking advice from the relevant guide entry).

Does that make things clearer?

Linking to articles in PR is still allowed, if I'm not mistaken. It's external links that are off. Yes?

Yep. Croz's point was that external links are useful in Peer Review.

So let me get this straight - we can use URLs in our Guide Entries and forum postings? What sort of URLs will not be allowed in a post? I can assume all the naughty ones are 'right out.' Does this also include commercial sites like Amazon.com, Sprite.com, etc.?

- Lentilla

URLs can only be used in Guide entries NOT in forum posts

Though internal h2g2 & BBC links can be used in forums - last time I looked anyway

;^)#

According to the house rules:

> "Unsuitable sites would include those with racist material, pornographic or sexually explicit material, anything which encourages illegal activites, material which infringes copyright, or sites which purely plug or promote commercial products or services without containing material which enhances the subject matter."

Note that this is less restrictive than the criteria for the bbc itself. For example, you could link to a page with a flame war on it, or a page which contains links to commercial companies. As I read it, anyway...