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

Thanks for the suggestions everyone.

GTB - to be honest that sounds really complicated, and it would take months to set up, it'd be a technical nightmare. Isn't it just easier to live with the idea that some student who wants to earn an extra bit of money reads through your stuff? It's not that big a deal, its just a change that we have to get used to.

As I mentioned elsewhere (over at Zaphodistas) what concerns me most is consistency of moderation - in one post I had an E-dress removed and in another (in the same forum) I didn't (same E-dress).

Now I'm not going to "officially" complain about this as it is so minor and you must be swamped with more "urgent" matters.

Ta!

Peta wrote: "Isn't it just easier to live with the idea that some student who wants to earn an extra bit of money reads through your stuff?"

I have obviously failed to communicate, if you think that's what I'm about. I have no problem with my stuff being moderated. I doubt that I would ever post anything at 'Researcher Access' level, if such a system were implemented.

I'm trying to work toward SOME kind of compromise idea here. If the Beeb didn't have to pro-actively moderate all the pages, it would save THEM staff and time, it would make the Zaphodistas happy, and I didn't realize it was technically 'nightmarish'.

I was just brainstorming. 'Brainstorming board,' right?

GTB

Oops sorry to be critical, it's wrong to do that in a brainstorming I know, so apologies.

What I was trying to say is that a highly complicated solution won't be a solution, we have a small team, it has to be something that we could feasibly implement. The idea of hiding bits of the site would be really complicated and it would probably/possibly cause even more disagreements. People don't seem to like change much at all, even when it's positive. Funny but true.

Peta,

No hard feelings, of course, and I apologize for the tone of my last post... I wrote it first thing in the morning while running late for the bus, which I missed. (serves me right )

I'm getting very close to the point where I stop thinking about all this policy nonsense and get back to the business of researching and writing entries; after all, that's why I'm here. Hopefully I'll get my first batch of Sub-edits from Anna soon, and that'll keep me plenty busy !

Please let us know when the policies are up for review, though. If it's June or later, so be it. H2G2 means a lot to me, and I am interested in the behind-the-scenes details, in so far as they can be shared with the community. If there are decisions on which you want researcher input, I'm definitely available for that, and I'll try to be less whiny.

(Though, personally, I think *I* could write the code to implement a partly hidden h2g2, but nobody's offered me that job... )

GTB

Ah ha, you're a new Sub? Ah, well that'll make it easy then. We always run new ideas past the volunteer teams first, ask them to comment, that type of thing. We also ask them to beta-test new versions of h2g2 before they are released, and to give us lots of feedback and comments. so now you're an official volunteer we'll certainly be asking you for Researcher input. We take the volunteers comments very seriously too.

Peta

We've got more SubEds?

[bookmarking a most interesting conversation]

[ditto]

[LIL]
*listening*

Peta wrote: "What I was trying to say is that a highly complicated solution won't be a solution, we have a small team, it has to be something that we could feasibly implement. The idea of hiding bits of the site would be really complicated and it would probably/possibly cause even more disagreements. People don't seem to like change much at all, even when it's positive. Funny but true."

Ok, sorry if I'm being irritating, but I'm not quite ready to let this idea die, since it looks appealing, and since I'm not sure that it's as complicated as you say. The purpose of this post is to spell out why I believe that "The Third Way" is do-able.



1) The idea as it now stands with me: Each Guide Entry has one of two access levels: Public - call it Level 1, and Researcher - call it Level 2. If you want, there could be a Level 3 - Italics only, but let's stick to two for now. Level 1 would have to pass through the pro-active moderators, and Level 2 could be re-actively moderated like the old Guide. The advantage of this would be a Happy BBC at Level 1, and Happy, Free Researchers at Level 2.


2) More specific details: The author of an entry could declare the entry either Level 1 or Level 2 with a button on the Edit Entry page. This could also be true for User Pages. All Edited entries would be Level 1, of course, as would Peer Review, the Post, and other major community pages. Fora could inherit their access level from the entry to which they're attached.


3) Why I think this is technically feasible: I know my way around object oriented code. I have done a bit of software engineering, and I have a very good feel for how a site like this COULD be put together. Not to put too fine a point on it, I have been casually reverse-engineering h2g2 from home, and IMHO, I think I've sassed how it works, and how access level control could be implemented (in broad strokes, of course - I haven't actually SEEN the code yet, though now that I think of it, I'm going to start checking out the source that my browser will let me see; I bet I'll learn a lot that way!)

One technical point particularly worth mentioning is that the Guide ALREADY distinguishes between Researchers and Public viewers. When you click on the "Discuss This Entry" button, a different action occurs if you are a registered user than if you aren't. Since this distinction is already made, it shouldn't be too hard to check a user's identity against the access level for a requested page, and either display the page, or else a message that says something friendly about the advantages of becoming a researcher.


4) My proposal: I am confident that, if I were given a copy of the relevant parts of the h2g2 code, I could implement the changes that I am thinking of. I would be happy to donate however many weeks of my life it would take to do this. Just give me a chance, and I'll create a version of h2g2 with access level control. Of course I'll agree not to show your code to anyone, and I'll do ALL the work of coding. When done, I'll send you a copy for beta-testing, we can see how it works, and then there only remains the simple task of convincing the Beeb that it's a good idea .



So, fellow Researchers, Towers, Techies, Beebs, Zaphodistas, Hitchhikers, Vogons, whaddya think? Am I crazy, and is that a bad thing? Does this idea suck, and why? How can it be improved? Would everyone hate access level control, and what would be their gripes? Let's get this brainstorm going here!

GTB

Just a fellow researcher putting in my two cents/pence to say that GTBacchus has put forth what seem like a solid suggestion for implementing a site with access level control. I hope those who understand the technicalities of this will join in on the discussion. And I don't agree that people don't like change. I think change with strong user contribution makes everyone feel like they are part of the team. Then change doesn't feel as if it is imposed without consideration of the wishes of the community.

Bah! Why would GT's suggestion be so technical? Buy another URL called "h2g2_for_babies" or some similar phrase or acronym, make only the edited, sanitized guide entries visible from there, and put the current URL http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2 (for adults) back to the rules circa Ripley 1.3 (all the same current functionality would be nice, though). The problem is that BBC/h2g2 likes their status quo as it is right now and THEY are afraid of any change, *even* *if* *that* *change* *is* *positive*.

GT, I've seen variations on this theme suggested over the past few weeks. I even suggested something like this about 2 weeks back: Edited Guide entries are already scrutinized and sanitized. Just make big warnings to all new visitors that the Edited Guide is safe and sparkling, that this is the section BBC can claim more direct association with to maintain its allegedly pristine image, and that they can treat all the rest of us in the unedited underground like mutants hidden in the basement or attic, as long as they let us be free there (as free as we were before the imposition of BBC restrictions).

[By the way, I'm sort of worried about BBC's image lately, in that it has become increasingly anti-democratic from the way I've seen it treat its customers/viewers/online spectators. The value of BBC's super-duper branding potential will continue to diminish while they continue to restrict h2g2.]

Of course, people said it wouldn't work, that the Guide must remain one unified piece, blah blah blah, and that Aunt Beeb wouldn't agree to it.

At this point, I wouldn't mind if your suggestion went into effect. However, I think it will take just as much struggle to institute your compromise as it would take to get a complete revocation of these stupid new restrictions. Plus they'll get side-tracked claiming that your suggestion would be too technically difficult to implement, too much work for the current staff, would cost more money, while my argument for the removal of pro-active moderation will actually SAVE them money, man-power, maybe equipment costs, since they would need fewer moderators under a reactive moderation system. (Not to mention that it will save the site from becoming a ghost town, where have you heard this before? becoming a ghost town as new users discover that they can visit a hundred competing webhosts and online communities with fewer restrictions. Sorry to repeat myself, but I can't say this often enough.)

Anyhow, I'm afraid they won't change much in the direction of my suggestion or your suggestion. We just have to stick with it, "fight the good fight," and keep trying.

I'm working on writing a petition, and I got the idea to put links to any other opposing or competing or unrelated petitions at the bottom of my petition. If you work this up into a separate petition or something, then please let me know so I can give links.

For that matter, the petition is just in a discussion stage at this point. I will also give links from our "rough draft petition" page to this "Third Way" forum to point out your proposal. Maybe the other Zaphodistas will like your suggestion better than mine. I could live with that.

I like the idea put forward in post 52 of this thread (thank you, GT, for filling that in), but I do see a slight problem ....

What's to stop some officious twit from signing on as a researcher (because "by God it's my right to do so and how dare you try to keep me out?") and then hitting their Linda (WHY is it called that?) button every third post, because they see it as wrong and that kids may see it? Never mind that some of the researchers are technically the age of kids, but mature for their age, I think. You can try to protect yourself from the "youth-enizing" sorts only so long as someone doesn't decide they can complain and ignore the disclaimer they were required to okay.

Not meaning to throw a shoe in the works, but ....

SC

Why is it called the LINDA button?

The button, she is named after another female who became infamous for her mouth being open like that, Linda Lovelace from the movie Deep Throat. I can only hope that the movie was popular enough outside the States so further explanation will not be necessary.

SpaceCadette wrote: "What's to stop some officious twit from signing on as a researcher and then hitting their Linda button every third post, because they see it as wrong and that kids may see it?"

Well, that was possible under the OLD h2g2, wasn't it? Anyone who wanted to could complain as much as they wanted to. But Linda abuse is against the House Rules, and still would be. Linda abuse occurs if anyone constantly complains on frivilous grounds. I'm sure that, even in the Level 2 entries, pointless vulgarity would still be verboten, as would libel, pornography, incitements to criminal behavior and copyright violations, but I didn't think that we became Zaphodistas to defend our right to do THOSE things. If someone were to Linda you for posting your holiday snaps or for chatting about the weather in bubblish, they THEY would be in violation.

At least that's how I imagine it...

GTB

Zigackly my dear GT - as we all feel so strongly about this, and you more than most from the way you're talking about spending weeks on the code, perhaps we should put a REAL proposal together with cost implications and everything....

It sounds close to my ideal for the guide.

I don't think Dear Auntie will be willing to accept that someone off site not in their employ should see the Code that they bought off of H2G2 though - after all that and the community are the only things going for the guide!

Does the Linda button exist for non-members viewing the site. It strikes me it would be hard to avoid 'Linda abuse' if the person doing so was not a researcher.

Z

I don't mean to object to GT's idea, but another possible problem with volunteer work is that it has caused difficulties (at least in the U.S.) for webhosts in the past.

AOL used volunteers as "hosts" for groups or communities within their system. Somehow, by the amount of work they were doing, and by the kinds of service they provided, they somehow qualified under U.S. law as NEEDING to be paid. AOL would have been breaking some kind of law if they did not pay their volunteers.

I don't know if there are similar laws in the UK, but there are strange issues for any kind of volunteer work of this kind.