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

In the past if we wanted a change, we were in direct contact with the team which made the rules, now the "italics" have to work within a set of rules which are imposed on them.

So the question is "Whats the best way of getting the BBC to change its rules".

The only conbtacts we have with those who made these rules is via the italics, who as far as I can tell think the same about the restrictions as we do.

The BBC is an old, large organisation so making changes is slow, cumbersome and involves a lot of internal politics.
In order to make changes you need to get the relevent bosses on your side, or even better get them to think it's their idea.

Most of the bosses are conservative (with a small c, ie *not* as in the political party) in their outlook and very risk averse, Legal departments even more so .

Before they agree to anything they want to be sure that you have all the bases covered, so that they are not at risk of agreeing to something which causes them unexpected trouble later. Expected trouble is permitted providing you have a pre-prepared response for it when it happens and the effects are not going to result in anyone getting the sack, especially the boss.

(I know a bit about old, large organisations, I used to work for British Rail )

In order to get a change of policy you need to be able to convince them of three things.

1. The present situation is unsutainable in the long term (change is essential)
2. Your idea will work and is sustainable
3. All the risks associated with it have been identified and eliminated or at least mitigated.

If we check our suggestions for these three things then Mark, Peta and the rest will be able to feed their bosses with the ideas, with the best chance of getting them approved.

First we need to decide on a course of action. All this floundering around is good, to a certain extent, but we need to bring this to a point soon.

An excellent point, Bald Bloke.

By posting our complaint here, we are preaching to the converted, since the people at the BBC who made these decisions are likely not reading the h2g2 forums. I'm sure the italics carry our comments upward, but those at the very top might get tired of hearing about it from them, and it's often more effective to have direct communication.

Unfortunately, the BBC seems a bit vague on their contact information here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/feedback/websites.shtml
and h2g2 does not turn up in the search.
Which leaves this page:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/contact/
which is a too general, I think.

But if we go around the italics directly to the BBC, is there a chance we could make things worse? I'd be interested in hearing what the italics have to say, not necessarily an endorsement, but a least a definite "no don't do it" or a "no comment" will help.

Maybe a letter writing campaign? It seems odd to suggest snail mail to address issues on a web site, but if the BBC is like most large organizations, paper still outweighs the electron.

The BBC has a very thick hide from years of dealing with the British Public
Indescriminate fire will get us nowhere or may even count against us, rather like using a pea shooter at an elephant, the most your going to do is annoy it and who wants to be near an angry elephant.

I don't think by posting here we are just "preaching to the converted", I think BBC onlines bosses may well be passing through the site (unannounced) and the italics may well be able to draw their attention to pages which contain well thought out arguments and positive suggestions.

Certainly if I were an italic I wouldn't want to point them to a page full of wingers and moaners who were just being negative.

My thinking may be a little machiavellian , but thats the way of the world.

"1. The present situation is unsutainable in the long term (change is essential)
2. Your idea will work and is sustainable
3. All the risks associated with it have been identified and eliminated or at least mitigated."

Excellent plan, Bald Bloke! (Have you signed up yet as a Zaphodista?) That said, let's get started!

Regarding point 1, Subcommandante Deidzoeb has made some excellent points which you can find at http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A520769

Of course (and I've said this before), DOUGLAS ADAMS HIMSELF makes these same points regularly!

Basically, the idea is that the Internet is fundamentally different from a non-interactive broadcast medium. Those ISPs which recognize the demand for free interaction will flourish, those which ignore said demand will flounder.

Anyway, on to point 2. Mikey's third way seems workable and sustainable, but I'm not sure we even have to go that far. I think it is workable and sustainable for the BBC to simply adopt a hands-off policy, as do other hosts. After-the-fact, re-active moderation is perfectly legal (and much less expensive!), according to EU Directive 2000/31/EC, as cited by myself and HappyDude in another thread on this Brainstorming Board.

As for point 3, quote the law, and show the Beeb that other hosts (like AOL) do quite well without pro-active moderation. Maybe we could even add something to the terms and conditions which Researchers sign, where we agree that the BBC is not liable for anything we say or do, and that they have the right to suppress anything illegal that we may say while under their roof.

comments?

GTB

I agree that it would be a good idea to nail down a feasible plan before approaching any BBC dudes. I also think it would be a good idea to talk to TPTB first, for 2 reasons -- 1) going over or around their heads could potentially just make the situation more difficult, and 2) it's entirely possible that whatever plan we come up with has already been discussed and shot down by the BBC already, and we'd want to know why, so we could find a way to work through the objections.


Mikey

Mikey,

Good point about involving the italics. (Have you noticed that Peta has attached the A# for this page to her nickname?) To that end, why don't we really get busy here, hammer out a plan, and then ask Peta what she thinks of it?

Regarding your point on the BBC and Legal Stuff thread, that the Beeb would rather not get sued at all (as would I!), then, in the spirit of Bald Bloke's observations, we would have to show that that there is virtually no danger of getting sued, or better yet, that there is less danger of getting sued without moderation than with. Someone made a decent argument for that point on the other thread, what do you think of it?

GTB

why don't we ask her what has already been shot down so we don't spend alot of time on something potentially useless?

I humbly suggest that whatever coherent plan is devised be submitted to a legal type person who can then obfuscate it in order to make it palatable to the legal ninnys who caused all this in the first place

Seriously, I think your idea has great merit, and at very least would make a most interesting Guide Entry

If I can help in any way...

Check out my comments here. http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F64554?thread=104624&latest=1 :-) Hope this helps.

Whilst I would defend to the death everyone's right to have this conversation, its whole basis does strike me as odd. Can I just say that I'm one of those people who simply ACCEPTS moderation, relatively unquestioningly?

Perhaps it's a personal balance between freedom and social interaction. If you're in somebody's house and they ask you not to smoke, do you:
(a) simply accede to this request;
(b) enquire exactly what their problem is and on what legal basis they make this request;
(c) set out to get them to allow you to smoke just in the conservatory, and perhaps at some future date also in the hall; or
(d) say "f**k you" and light up anyway?

I'm not saying it's perfect, and I have a couple of examples. Some photos which (I thought) were both pleasant and illustrative were removed from my Monivea article. I can assure everyone I took them personally, and with the permission of the family concerned. But there's no simple, non-labour-intensive mechanism for me to *prove* that, so I accept that it can't be assumed, and that they had to go.

The one URL removed from my journal was a link to, of all things, the BBC's own news website. Not trusting this link seems slightly paranoid, but I shrugged my shoulders and got on with it.

I lived until recently in Ireland, and over there they have a peak time radio show (The Last Word, 5-7pm on Today FM) in which swearing upto and including the F-word is commonplace. Irish society is comfortable with it, I'm comfortable with it, I wish BBC radio and TV (let alone its internet arm) were so relaxed - or carried a discussion program so lively and interesting. After a while, you don't even notice the cursing. But at the moment, the British and, even more so, US societies that provide the bulk of the membership simply aren't ready for it.

The Net is really unregulated. It's wonderful, and creative, and contains some incredible stuff. However, it is also unstructured, often offensive, and 96% of it is as dull as a dreary Wednesday in Droitwich. I'll still happily visit a vibrant site where I have to obey certain rules but know that the people I meet will be intelligent, accepting, and polite. None of the restrictions really impinge on my enjoyment that much.

My real worry about the moderators is that their salaries will increase the cost of running the site to the point where the return doesn't justify it...

GVI,

The analogy of BBC/h2g2 as the host of a houseparty (or a formal dinner or whatever) is not a good analogy. A house does not disappear if all the guests get bored and go home, but h2g2 disappears if the researchers decide they can express themselves more freely at one of the hundreds of other online community that don't have BBC's restrictions.

This is why some of us feel justified in demanding that h2g2 remain a place for free expression. If we disagree with the way this houseparty is run, then we can all go home, and suddenly h2g2 is no longer an evolving guide written by an active community. Suddenly it's an amateur encyclopedia written last year.

For all it's worth, I feel good about the comments by Peta on a different forum. Hopefully change will come eventually. But we can and should let them know what changes they need to make if they want some of us to remain.

But Deidzoeb, that's pretty much my point - there are already hundreds of other places where people can say whatever they like. Don't we want to be a little different?

Fundamentally, h2g2 is not a private members' club but a public place. In public places, there are certain standards of behaviour that need to be followed - among which are not being defamatory, swearing or doing anything to frighten the horses. These rules, written or unwritten, actually make our lives more pleasant.

Part of BBC Online's remit (as I understand it) is to increase awareness and acceptance of the internet in the minds of the non-savvy British public. At the risk of starting a flame war (though I hope not, they're so tiresome), people with no social skills already seem pretty at home on the 'Net. Many of the rest view it as a distasteful and anarchic place, and that puts them off enjoying its benefits. Wouldn't it be nice - and *good* for business - if h2g2 became a haven from all the unpleasantness?

I honestly believe you overestimate the number of people who will leave simply because they can't accept the rules. And possibly also their worth to the site.

Global Village Idiot,

"...there are already hundreds of other places where people can say whatever they like. Don't we want to be a little different?"

If "we" were the ones who wanted to be different, then there would not have been such an uprising after BBC came in and dumped restrictions on us. We were having a fine time in h2g2 back when it followed standards of most other online communities. These new restrictions have obviously been initiated by the BBC, not because we the researchers all "wanted to be a little different."

Now put your "public place" comparison in context. In public places in some areas of the world, it is perfectly normal and legal for a prostitute to offer her services. In some public places, clothing is optional. In some parts of the world, there are public places where women will be beaten if they are not accompanied by a proper male chaperone. So what is h2g2's context as a public place? It is a public place ON THE WEB. As a public place on the web, it ought to allow people to talk openly as they would anywhere else on the web. Right now, it's not. You see that as a good thing and I don't. It's nice that we can still discuss these things and disagree about them. The moderators are not yet throwing out all dissidents, although they clearly have politics on their minds. (See the journal entries at http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/U13 in which Editor Mark Moxon explicitly states that the election in the UK figures in the BBC's decision of whether or how long to continue the current system of moderation.)

I don't know if you used h2g2 before the BBC came into the picture, but it was a perfectly pleasant community then. For people who were new to the system, a group of volunteers called ACES would greet newbies and help with any questions they had. I never heard any clamor for a set of rules to keep people from raising cain here. Never heard people complaining that h2g2 was too "distasteful" or "anarchic." So please don't act as if these new restrictions have been imposed to make h2g2 a more "pleasant" place. They have been imposed only because the BBC has paranoid lawyers who are more worried about the Guide as a product than as a community.

"Part of BBC Online's remit (as I understand it) is to increase awareness and acceptance of the internet in the minds of the non-savvy British public."

I'm sure these people who have never dipped a finger in the internet have likely watched movies with content that has not been sanitized for their protection, heard live spoken conversations that were not censored, and probably lowered their voices in a library where the matron is giving nasty glances at them for being so loud, then turns to go about her business shelving books by Norman Mailer, Stephen King, Kurt Vonnegut Jr, and many other valued contributions to modern literature that are full of profanity.

I think you overestimate the number of people who would request the internet to be sanitized for their protection... although I wouldn't be so judgemental as to claim they have nothing valuable to contribute to this site.

"I honestly believe you overestimate the number of people who will leave simply because they can't accept the rules."

This is only one part of the problem. There will be some researchers who will leave because of the new restrictions. Probably a few dozen at least have already peeked into the new system, seen all their old stuff silenced, and decided not to use h2g2 anymore.

The factor you're missing is the number of savvy web users who will peek into h2g2, see that it has restrictions unlike any other online community, and will never join. That's what will be the downfall of h2g2. "The Internet views censorship as damage, and routes around it." BBC's restrictions are like a blockage in the free flow of ideas. We will either repair the damage by convincing BBC to pull the cork, or we will route around it.

Finally, if you don't think that anyone who protests the new restrictions is "worth" having here, I invite you to check out the list of names on the Zaphodistas page A520769. I'm sure Peta the h2g2 Community Editor is not going to leave this community (or this job!) any time soon, but she must have seen something compelling that made her sign to the list of demands. Others include longtime h2g2 members like Peregrin, Asteroid Lil (of Lil's Atelier), most of the contributors to the h2g2 Post, and several ACEs and Sub-editors. Why should we feel that we are unwanted in this community, when it isn't the community telling us to leave, it's the new "owner" of the community? They can buy the servers and they can hire the staff, but they cannot buy the people who have been developing this community for a year or more.

Global Village Idiot that was very well put indeed!

Brilliant comments, well put, perfect sense.

Hi Deidzoeb,

I've been with H2G2 since pretty early on (I was in the very first wave of Sub-Ed recruitment). I immediately latched onto it because I thought it offered a great balance, good intelligent debate but without the flaming (well, mostly ), abuse, and people cutting in with non-sequiturs that bedevil so many bulletin boards.

The Net, like life, is heterogeneous. Yes, we all swear from time to time. Most of us blaspheme. Everyone but a saint must occasionally mutter insults under their breath at colleagues, government, or fellow road-users. It's a matter of being able to compartmentalise and adapt. Most people behave differently depending on whether they're down the pub with their mates, at work, visiting their aunt or having tea with the vicar. Remember that the BBC is affectionately known as "Auntie Beeb"!

I didn't mean to deny worth in the Zaphodistas or anyone else who disagrees with me - I know, like and respect many on that list - but if a person is so deeply committed to not fitting in that they abandon the site because they can't live with these restrictions, can't express themselves without vulgarity or criticise without libel, then I doubt that their membership here was ever really in the site's best interests.

If the Internet is to survive and thrive, it has to move beyond being the domain of the net-savvy, anti-authority, computer-geek tendency and become as accessible and ubiquitous as the telephone. It has to become a place where normal people with mainstream standards feel they can come without being intimidated. It has to become a place where people feel they can let their children wander without fear.

H2G2 has a chance to be in the vanguard of that movement, and the reason I believe it can do that is because - even before the BBC's restrictions - it was composed in the vast majority of pleasant, intelligent, open-minded individuals who enjoyed civilised communication. I don't think the new rules are a barrier to that, I believe it will still be fun, and I don't think the rules should be changed to allow (and by implication almost encourage) a coarsening of those core values, just because the laddish tendency is more vocal.

Though of course I'll defend to the death your right to say otherwise.

GVI

There is free and low-cost software available to help parents make the web a more friendly, 'family oriented' place. One of the cheapest and easiest to use is called the 'off switch'.

Although the 'cyber community' will probably never be as idyllic as we would wish, I believe it is evolving toward a more coherent, harmonious manifestation of global consciousness, and will become seamlessly integrated into whatever society results.

Therefore there is no doubt whatsoever the Internet and the Web will survive and thrive. It will change and grow and evolve into something quite profound. It has already become more than just a 'geek toy', despite the limitations imposed by limited bandwidth, flaky software and the qwerty keyboard.

The population of H2G2 will adapt, and continue, and grow. Apart from a bit of idle silliness, most researchers want to get on with writing and reviewing guide entries. I know I do. I also know that most of the things I want to say here are not going to cause the BBC to get their, (its), knickers in a knot. (can I say that?)

Of course we all believe in the unfettered exchange of ideas and information. Of course censorship poses a barrier, and can be a blunt instrument from time to time. The manner in which postings are censored in H2G2 may seem capricious, but in general I think well intentioned.

I doubt if The Rules will much hinder the primary purpose of H2G2, and may instead provide a much needed structure. Consider also how much creative process the very imposition of such rules has engendered.

Remember the Internet was created to enable scientific and academic collaborative research, and that most of the infrastructure was developed for and by the military for security reasons. The Rules therefore have a precedent.

Rules are not necessarily bad, as long as they are applied intelligently. I have no doubt that every effort is being made to apply The Rules intelligently. Otherwise, why have H2G2 in the first place?

I would like to see the 'Don't Panic' button reinstated, though. ( I know, I know, its off topic... sheesh! )

To address the topic of *political* balance separately...

I think on this one the BBC may well have got its stance wrong, or at least may have trouble enforcing it in a spirit of free speech.

It is in the nature of politics to generate debate. Fierce and partisan debate, which is often open-ended ("...and another thing!..."). The fact that a large proportion of the respondents on a particular thread share a view does *not* mean that that view is invalid, and especially do not mean that it should be censored. If valid points are made in a civilised way, they should be allowed to stand.

In my view, censorship of this type should only come in when (a) there is incitement to hatred or violence, or (b) it becomes clear that a person or group is engaged in a coherent campaign to artificially unbalance a thread (as is alleged to have happened with the attempted rigging of Radio 4's "Man of the Year" poll a while back). Anything else is unacceptable interference in the democratic process.

In particular, I am worried that the BBC's rule (found from your U13 link) about stopping debate which is slanted against one *party* will be misapplied to stop debate where public opinion is heavily slanted on one particular *issue*. For instance, if a government minister were to be demonstrated to have behaved in a corrupt manner, or an opposition spokesman to espouse declaring war on Europe, it would be natural for there to be widespread condemnation of those actions. It is possible that there are even official party policies - on nuclear weapons, animal rights, abortion or the electoral system - which the majority of contributors to a particular discussion will be violently and overwhelmingly opposed to (or in favour of). To deny those opinions expression because they are not "balanced" is a nonsense and a denial of the real world.

Of course, in contrast, anyone making personal attacks on politicians, calling them "deformed" or their wives "horrid", should immediately be gagged and quite possibly thrown in the Tower.

Just to let you know I don't unthinkingly or unquestioningly support rules just for the sake of it

GVI

We work within certain rules and limitations all the time, especially within cyberspace and IT.

Rules can be beneficial, as long as they are applied in the correct way.

And as long as everyone plays by them

I have not heard anyone on h2g2 argue against the rule on libel. This is not a new rule under BBC, and I don't think it has anything to do with the people who are protesting BBC's new restrictions.

"I don't think the new rules are a barrier to that [civilised communication], I believe it will still be fun, and I don't think the rules should be changed to allow (and by implication almost encourage) a coarsening of those core values, just because the laddish tendency is more vocal."

Do you think that h2g2 was too coarse before BBC, in need of civilizing? If this were a new online community altogether, I could see your point. But it was a functioning community, it was civil, and I don't think there were the kinds of problems there that you imply needed to be solved. I don't think any new users were scared off by the atmosphere pre-BBC.

I feel like I've been somehow put on the side of arguing against the status quo. But really my position *was* the status quo, that pre-BBC h2g2 functioned well, and anyone in favor of the new BBC restrictions ought to prove that there were problems. I think BBC has instituted a solution to correct a problem that never existed.