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

I've just found out that the Moderation Help Desk has been closed, apparently because the h2g2 team could no longer cope with the volume of complaints that were coming in. This seems to confirm a suspicion I've had recently that the Moderators, after easing up for a while, are suddenly becoming seriously heavy-handed again.

In the past week, I've been hit with two particularly stupid moderation decisions. In the first instance, a Guide Entry of mine was removed because, according to the e-mail I got, it contained one broken link. I checked, and the link was fine - but even if it hadn't been, surely they should have removed the link and not the whole page? Then I got a "URL removed by Moderator" message after I'd posted the name of a site rather than a URL - and the name concerned was "Dotmusic", so it didn't even LOOK like a URL.

Have I just been unlucky, or have others been having similar problems?

From those examples, sounds like you've been half unlucky, half victim of the usual immoderation.

I complained before about the silly rule where a broken link gets your whole page hidden. It seems like links to offensive sites get away with less punishment, since the page remains up but the URL gets the standard note [URL removed by moderator]. After seeing a lot of questions about this on Moderation Helpdesk, I asked about it on Community Soapbox: why not [broken link removed by moderator] so at least pages could remain up? Peta explained that when a moderator does that, they don't save the URL. If the researcher doesn't remember it or have it noted elsewhere, then it's deleted and gone. So hiding your page and sending an email to specify the problem seemed like a better solution. [From the researcher's viewpoint, it's another way that h2g2 loses functionality, if they intentionally bring down our pages just because of one broken link.]

I'm still looking around for any guide entry or conversation in which h2g2 staff mention why Moderation Helpdesk was removed. (Could be temporary for all I know, although they went to a lot of work removing links from other Feedback pages if it's only temporary.) Have you read any statements by the Italics about this, or just rumors elsewhere?

People will adjust by posting their moderation questions elsewhere. I don't see any conspiracy in it just yet. Let's wait to see what they say about it. Plenty of time to find a conspiracy later.

Well, in an e-mail to the h2g2 Scouts the other day, Mark Moxon explained that the Helpdesk had been closed "...because it's become practically a full time job. We believe this isn't
because moderation contains more mistakes, but because for some people,
nitpicking moderation decisions has become the latest cause celebre, and we
can't provide the one-on-one support they are demanding. On an increasing
number of occasions these discussions have deteriorated into personal
attacks on members of the h2g2 team and the Moderators themselves, and we
are no longer going to provide a forum where this is encouraged."

Thanks for the info. Is it okay to quote scout emails on h2g2, or is this privileged info? I know we are expected to treat moderation emails as if private, copyrighted works, and excerpts posted in h2g2 fora have been censored for that reason.

Although those keywords "some people" and "cause celebre" have sometimes meant me in the past, I don't think I've been complaining in that space lately. Guess they're refering to supporters of LeKZ.

Kind of a silly move, because it will only force protesters to find other spaces for their protest (prob'ly Community Soapbox - will that be next forum removed?), and people who had legit questions will have to guess where else they should be posting. But still not worth rending one's clothes or wailing or pulling hair out. If they had said all questions or protest about moderation will be deleted, that might be a reason to worry. This is just a minor change. I'm sure the legit questions will get responses by the Italics, and honest human errors by moderators will still get corrected when brought to their attention.

Well, those words went out to a pretty sizeable group of people, i.e. all the Scouts, and the disappearance of the Moderation Helpdesk is hardly a secret, so I think it'd be pretty silly if I got in trouble for passing on the official reasons. I never realised that Moderation e-mails were supposed to be confidential, and again that seems pretty heavy-handed. If you've been the victim of some comically absurd decision, surely you should be allowed to share the joke with your friends? Whatever happened to "share and enjoy"?

In fairness, I hadn't visited the Helpdesk for a while - I'd sorted out all my moderation problems either by e-mailing the Italics or putting polite but terse messages to the moderators in fora. So it may well be that the LeKZ Liberation Front had been making nuisances of themselves there - I really don't know. As you say, the closure of the Helpdesk isn't really such a big deal, since all it will do is to displace the disaffected to another location.

I hope you're also right about my recent run of run-ins with the Mods being just bad luck, and not symptomatic of some fresh clampdown. I'll try not to get paranoid... yet.

Mina alerted me to the fact that Mark talks a little about the closing of the Mod Helpdesk on his journal (he's U13). And LeKZ emailed me to talk about this a little bit. She included links to several discussion threads from the Mod Helpdesk. I assume that these iscussions are still live on h2g2, just can't be found as easily. Like when you remove an old journal entry from your page, but it still exists as a conversation if people have replied.

"I never realised that Moderation e-mails were supposed to be confidential, and again that seems pretty heavy-handed."

Maybe it's not all moderation emails, but certain emails from the Italics have messages at bottom now similar to the disclaimers you see on emails or faxes from lawyers. Basically it says that the info is confidential and should not be used or repeated elsewhere. I would think they could phrase these emails in such a way that it would not concern proprietary info, or that the content of the message would not embarass themselves if repeated elsewhere.

I was under the impression that physical letters and presumably electronic messages became your "property" when sent to you and addressed to you. One ought to be sure how much they can trust a friend before revealing secrets that could embarass you later. But Peta has explained it from a privacy angle -- if someone sends you a letter, it is intended for you only. Publishing it is something like a violation of the author's privacy. I don't know how UK or US law applies to letters, but I think that's how she explained it.

(I hope it's not true, because I published a zine full of old pen-pal letters several years back. It was called "DELINQUENT WENCH." )

Anyhow, I know they're probably lurking here and reading this, but the LeKZ Liberation Front are already shouting Conspiracy about the censorship of links and the dismantling of the Mod Helpdesk. (Is that a name you've seen anyone really use, "LeKZ Liberation Front," or did you just make that up? Good one.) The policy to censor all links to the main topica site seems heavy-handed, if it's true. But I can't tell at this point if it was general links to the main site, or links to specific discussion groups on topica that have been censored.

Yes, everything that was in the mail to the Scouts is also in Mark's journal. I'm relieved about that - I was starting to feel like I'd wickedly broken some sacred trust! I'd hate to lose my Scout's badge before I've even made one pick!

And yes, I did make up "LeKZ Liberation Front". They'll probably think I'm part of the conspiracy now that I've admitted that...

The moderators having found issue with a guide entry i wrote have just gone back and removed previously passed conversation postings by me, so there must be some knid of tightening. They also mentioned investigating lenient moderators.

All for our protection, in these sensitive times.

But historical revisionism? Surely this is a new tool.

I really don't believe the h2g2 Editorial staff are doing any of these things out of any malicious motivation, or desire to support the govt status quo, or any of the usual, classic reasons for censoring. In this case, it's just a side effect of their fear of being sued. Unfortunately that fear outweighs by far our concerns for being able to express ourselves.

They've been really helpful actually, it just seems that they have no power. No decision making freedoms.

Maybe some power, but not quite freedom. In another conversation, they said that BBC wanted all talk of Afghanistan moved to the Great Debate board on bbc.co.uk. So they have been trying to restrain the natural BBC tendency to produce h2g2 like a show instead of letting it happen like a community. Just wish BBC could be convinced how useless and silly the restrictions are.