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

"We've been swearing for centuries, and those in power have been trying to censor us for just as long."

Quote from another part of BBC Online. I would post the link but I'm not sure if that's allowed. Could someone let me know?

"But it's important to stress the positive aspects of the internet. The internet affords human rights activists and other opponents of racism with an inexpensive and effective method for responding to hate speech. In general, the best remedy to be applied to hate speech is more speech and not censorship." Dr Louise Ellison.

Taken from another part of BBC Online - from this you might get the impression that the BBC was against censorship but sadly it really is just another case of corporate duplicity.
I suspect the reason the BBC is really against using URL's in postings is that it believes that a website should strive to retain a user within that website. Just look at the sprawling nature of the site - go on check it out - it's becoming a large and unwieldy beast with the BBC trying to provide all answers itself. A very old fashioned model. This is the 21st century for goodness sake.

Try this link if I'm allowed: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/douglas_adams/rules.shtml

Perhaps the BBC never ever takes any notice of its own content.

But try this one for a detailed explaination of why the BBC is taking the stance it is with us: http://www.bbc.co.uk/webwise/column/col37.shtml

I looked at the first one. The quote

"Imagine what will happen as more and
more of the little transactions of our lives,
our decisions, our businesses, our
purchases, our arguments, get conducted
in close and immediate contact with each
other over the internet. My belief and my
hope is that the speed of response of the
internet will re-introduce us to that from
which our political systems have separated
us for so long, the consequences of our
own actions."

says just what I've been trying to say. Great minds think alike. Storm in a teacup

Out of curiousity to see if it was true ' that because there is no watershed on BBC Online' some words are not allowed to be used 'anywhere with BBC online' I visited the homepage of BBC ONline and decided to use the search engine provided. Imagine my surprise therefore when I typed the following words, each one with multiple references. There is one site called Off the Ball which appears to consist of making peoples names stand for amongst other things, swear words. Comepletely gratuitously.
So moderators please note each of the following words occurs in multiple references and contexts elsewhere on BBC online:
s**t, f**k, b******s, b*****d, b****r. Now you've been busy bleeping them out and upsetting this community on the grounds the BBC doesn't tolerate it but actually it DOES tolerate it and any child can use the search engine to find them. Doesn't it make it all seem a bit silly and pointless?

I'm duplicating this post with the 'offensive' language removed so that if it is censored people can still see the whole rest of the post in the meantime.
Out of curiousity to see if it was true ' that because there is no watershed on BBC Online' some words are not allowed to be used 'anywhere with BBC online' I visited the homepage of BBC ONline and decided to use the search engine provided. Imagine my surprise therefore when I typed the following words, each one with multiple references. There is one site called Off the Ball which appears to consist of making peoples names stand for amongst other things, swear words. Comepletely gratuitously.
So moderators please note each of the following words occurs in multiple references and contexts elsewhere on BBC online:
****, ****, ********, *******, ******. Now you've been busy bleeping them out and upsetting this community on the grounds the BBC doesn't tolerate it but actually it DOES tolerate it and any child can use the search engine to find them. Doesn't it make it all seem a bit silly and pointless?

It's perfectly correct that you can find some of the "banned" words on the BBC site - the distinction being that someone has already made the decision that the usage has already been editorially justified - e.g. the words occur in the name of a band, artwork, etc, or are otherwise justified by context - e.g. the football sites where one might expect more "vernacular". It's also found in transcripts of programmes originally broadcast on the BBC after the watershed. My interpretation of this is that on h2g2 we could have a guide entry on Philip Larkin, reviewing his poetry, which quotes directly from a poem, as in, "They f**k you up,your mum and dad" (you can find this used on the BBC Online Education pages) and this would be editorially acceptable. (Please note, that in this instance I starred out the swearword myself, because the phrase above isn't in the context on a guide entry).

OK that helps in understanding what this is all about. Thank you.

A pleasure.

You might also like to check out a new segment I've added to the Moderation Guidelines explaining a new procedure whereby in-house Editors (and only them) can add a link or two to an entry, to balance it up.

This is *not* us wanting to edit people's entries. What it is is a way of giving h2g2 entries more context, and as Peta said, context is important in moderation. If an entry on a contentious subject links to other entries or sites that cover different sides of the story, then instantly that entry gains a balanced context, and that is a good thing. It also prevents people taking entries out of h2g2 (and therefore out of context) and using them to criticise the site.

Thoughts welcome, as always.

I must say I was quite annoyed to find that the link to the "Straight Edge FAQ" in my recently reccommended Guide Entry had been removed, while only the link to a BBC Online Audio documentary remained. This was frustrating because the Straight Edge FAQ is known to be THE invaluable source about the movement and philosophy on the internet.

I just thought that this was a shame, because it meant that the reader would have less of a chance to find out more (it's certainly much more comprehensive than the audio documentary), and was totally uncommercial. It would have provided invaluable further reading - this is a Guide, after all. The loss of external links, while not the greatest of concerns, will be felt most in entries - as Mark points out, a balance of information is needed.

I'm not going to go on and on about 'censorship' on h2g2 as, so far, the moderation doesn't seem to have had too negetive an effect - but I am still concerned about the depth/range of information in entries.

*just remembers he's promises himself to keep off h2g2 'til he's got his work done*

Um... you ain't seen me, right?

Hi Mr T

Do you want to send the A number of the entry and the link to me in an email and I'll check it out personally and come back to you?

If people do have moderation queries, then please post them to my page, and I'll do my best to respond. Thanks..

AHHHH!! Balance!!! BBC News has to have BALANCE because it has a reputation for honesty and integrity (HA!). WHy so guide entries? You see the thing about balance is that it only seems to come into the equation when someone has written something bad. If an article is written saying some town or other is a nice place to live the editor isn't going to seek out a link to an article which states that actually that place is a boring dead-end dump with nothing going for it, are they? Or are they?
Aren't some of the best articles ones which are provocative and provoke a raging debate in the fora below them? Provokes someone to write an article promoting a contrary opinion? Are other parts of the Beeb going to provide links to articles on the guide as a matter of policy?
Seems to me the suits at the Beeb are nibbling away at you - got to be part of the corporate line, got to maintain editorial standards now you're in the BBC. We have our reputation to think of. The BBC only actually tend to push their own version of the truth, just like anyone else. Do you remember the reporting of the miner's strike? Little balance in that I recall. No mention of the police and courts for the illegal arresting of British citizens and imposition of illegal bail restrictions but quick to report the illegal actions of any miners.
I can remember what a camera man once said to me who was a front line news camera man: 'The camera doesn't lie, I point it at what I see and it records it. The lie comes in the edit - how it's all put together, what bits are selected and what bits are left out. What the voiceover says.' Why can't the guide be like that camera - recording what ordinary people actually think about things? I just think that some of those suits just see h2g2 as a way of enticing more users into the rest of BBC Online's rather staid and boring output. All very worthy and extremely dull but of course very, very 'balanced'. I would support balance if every single article has a link to an opposing view. To take your example would you put a link to this hypothetical article on Cannabis in an article which advocated taking no drugs at all? If there was an article on non-violent resistance would there be a link to one on terrorism as an effective means of obtaining change? If the answer is no then you are not talking about balance but weighting the guide in a particular direction. One way balance.

Could the moderation guidelines be changed to reflect the teensy bit of info about swearing you mention here? Information is power, they say...

Well, only unbalanced and contentious entries will require a link to balance them. If you see an entry which advocates not taking drug use at all, you are free to hit the "yikes" button and complain that it is unbalanced. If the complaint is dismissed, you are free to talk to Peta and ask her to explain the reasoning in that particular case.

Reading between the lines, I can't see this happening a lot - only for entries which are so unbalanced that they risk getting the BBC sued. For example, a negative entry on the wonderful Dr. Godfrey, of censorship-inducing litigation fame, would need something doing to it to prevent the guy going for another cash giveaway. Adding an italiced link would seem to be a better solution than panicking and summarilly vaping the content.

I'm presuming that "for more information" is just an example, rather than the standard form? Might be worth changing the example to be "for other views of". The former comes across as rather denigrating to the original entry - the latter acknowledges that there is a breadth of medical and moral opinion on cannabis, and that an entry with all the information in the world might still reasonably conclude in favour of taking it where legal (and changing the law where not). Equally, an entry with all the information in the world might conclude that it is evil, and all junkies will go to hell.

Yeah, we'll tailor each link to the entry itself. In fact, I'm off to change the example link given, because out of context it makes Radio One look like it's a drug site, which it not true.

Context - it's the byword at the moment!

Yep - like the fix.

Personally, I'd always prefer that such an italic comment be put at the end of the entry. You'd only be putting it at the front for excessively long entries, I hope?

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. An individual, witty and informative site swallowed up by a faceless corporation, and spat out as nothing more than another message board.

As for the censorship of this site - the proper name for this new 'moderation' tactic - are people so feeble and weak as to be offended by words on a screen? If so, my advice to you is lock yourself in a darkened room with no TV, no radio, no communication with the outside world at all, and continue the rest of your life therein.

Where will it stop? If a BBC bod browses through this stuff and finds an anti Beeb remark, will the site be forced to remove said item? Will political comment be stifled? Will the vomit inducing sham known as political correctness rear its incredibly ugly head here too?

Apparently this new site is a step up from the old one... could someone please explain why, as I appear to be confronted by a site straight from the dark ages.

Not impressed.

How much of the site have you actually seen since you arrived back here today? Have you looked around at what content the Moderators have left in? You'll find that it's the vast, vast majority of it. The terms and conditions are almost 100% the same as they were before - and about the only change is greater controls on external URLs, which is a workload issue - they have to be checked periodically, and if URLs were allowed in forums the workload of checking them would be enormous. Added to the BBC being non-commercial, and such not being able to link to commercial sites...

Yes, it is perfectly possible to be offended by words on a screen. I have been, multiple times in the past and, I'm sure, in the future as well. As a Guru, I've been testing the site for just over a week or so now, and we have discussed the issue of Moderation (which _isn't_ censorship) repeatedly with the h2g2 staff. Perhaps you should go and find some of those conversations (some of which are in my recent conversations list on my Personal Space) and read them.

And ultimately, if you don't like the Moderation system, nobody's forcing you to come here.

Also, where do you get justification for the BBC being a faceless corperation? They most certainly aren't, and h2g2 is still as individual and witty as it was before. As I mentioned before, almost 100% of the content is still there, unchanged, as interesting, bizarre and obscure as it was beforehand. The same people are still in charge, the same Researchers are still here. It is a shame you feel the way you do, but I would urge you to spend some more time looking around before you finalise your decision.