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

Methinks the BBC has lost the plot on this one and has taken the first step to evolving into a Vogon Constructor Fleet.

Seriously though - few sensible people would disagree with the moderators removing offensive material from the discussions, but a blanket ban on discussing a key event affecting the course of politics in a major world power (I may, or may not, be being sarcastic with that description) is ridiculus. I assume from this that any of us with the remotest interest in world affairs will therefore be unable to comment on or ask questions about any election in any country in the world given that, as was said in this pronouncement, a lot of the h2g2 crowd are not from the uk.

The guide is meant to cover any topic, an world affairs is surely a critical part of that if we are part of a global community.

The BBC should remember that they were meant to be custodians of the Guide not its mind control!

Perhaps you might like to read through the other thread in this same forum at http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F65237&thread=110236 where exactly the same point is discussed. You might also like to visit the Election 2001 board where h2g2 Researchers who want to talk politics are doing just that, and very happily and successfully too.

The conclusion there is that we are not restricting discussion of the election, just heavy politics. And it's not the BBC doing it, it's the Editor of h2g2 and his team, who do not have the resources to implement the highly laudable 'non-bias' policy of the BBC during elections.

If, after reading the debate here, you still think we are Vogons, then that's your prerogative, of course.

Mark

I don't really think you Vogons, though please don't send me any of your poetry to read. However, I am seriously concerned that the issue of moderation is handled with great care.

Since my original posting I have been following the rest of the conversation, so I won't be adding anything more on this them.

Please don't bulldoze my house!!!

ps - I wouldn't push the 'highly laudable' non-bias policy of the BBC too much if I were you - it doesn't tend to survive specific scrutiny very well even if it is generally true, and it will only raise discussion of how well BBC News interviewers match up to the corporations ideal standards of reporting and its charter. I could be prompted to start a discussion thread on that if you like.

le election er...censorship thing (yea, use pretty words...it's still f*****g censorship) was a ridiculous well planned hoax by the editors on all of us. You know like..."oh, wouldn't it be funny if we told the researchers we're gonna censor them...and not...you know put like a big JOKE sign at the end of the link..."

But it's not.

it's slightly sickening but...

I can hardly contain my laughter. (man...peter! that was good. i mean like really good. i mean not like "uh, good" *roll eyes in opposite direction* , but "oh hahaha! yeaaaaaaaa good!" right.

i believe these said rules will be in FORCE? did i read that correctly.

""highly laudible" non-bias"

ahaha.
They may have to bulldoze a few houses to make way for cleanly paved highways of brain enwashment (ofcourse we won't notice...)


(will we?)

I notice that this thread has been lead elsewhere in h2g2...however i really felt the need to post right here. Bare with me.
In the words of the great Janis J. "don't compromise yourself (ahem...you're all you got."



note: the writer of this here post, would like to say...that any vague/non vague jabs at this current system are totally unintenional (lie), though should not be misconstrued as point blank/ irrational/ or rude...because that's really not what i'm getting at here...what im getting at is...THIS IS SILLY.

I'm thinking maybe an open free sort of forum is an impossibility. maybe the best idea would be to turn this totally fascist, but in a funny way ofcourse...where we all have to abide by certain ridiculous sort of rules...like never use the word WAS ever again. Commandments perhaps>? THou shalt not take the name of the beeb in vain. Perhaps I could take joy out of that somehow.
I'm babbling.
but really. this is ..gah. AHHH!!

PeterBigFoot - I'm also seriously concerned that the issue of moderation is handled with great care. We hope that it now is (after the initial teething problems). We certainly haven't had *any* complaints about moderation of political content on h2g2 since these guidelines were put in force, which makes me hopeful that we're doing things right.

Feel free to discuss the BBC's impartiality during elections, but I would *strongly* urge you to do it on the BBC's Election 2001 board at http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-perl/h2/h2.cgi?&board=election2001 . That sort of discussion is exactly what it has been set up for, and you can already find a thread on the very subject.

Mark

"And it's not the BBC doing it, it's the Editor of h2g2 and his team, who do not have the resources to implement the highly laudable 'non-bias' policy of the BBC during elections."

How can the opinions of h2g2 researchers be confused with BBC bias when the bottom of every page says, "The majority of content on h2g2 is generated by h2g2's Researchers, who are members of the public. The views expressed are theirs and unless specifically stated are not those of the BBC." ?

With this disclaimer, BBC shows that they are not being biased. It should also mean that researchers could say anything they want without it reflecting poorly on BBC.

If someone gives a political speech on a soapbox, would one claim that the manufacturer of that brand of soap is biased?

Oh dear. I already posted this... http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F69416?thread=117773 Countdown to removal...?