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

Could someone recommend a few tight sentences to add on the petition to explain how feasible and preferable "self-policing" would be? I honestly can't figure out how to address this appeal, when the audience we are writing this for (the BBC) may hear these words as "ga ga goo goo self-policing, ble doo popo quite trustworthy, summa loota we were well-behaved on h2g2 back in the days before BBC, boohoo I want my sippy cup."

Self-policing is a point worth mentioning, but I don't trust myself to phrase it in any way that Establishment type people would agree with.

Neither do I! Summit like "As self moderation has become a defacto standard on Internet "News Groups" throughout the world, and, as it has proved itself more "Legally safe" than reactive moderation, we propose that Self Policing be reintroduced to the community"....

She also suggesting expanding on the diff between broadcasting and communities.... oh, and subcomm - why not make the change to the "legal or illegal" thing that you like the most, so the petition is an up to date reflection of our ideas.

ok: here goes...

change "system relying more on reactive moderation" to "system relying more on reactive moderation *and self-policing*". change "would make it clear that the BBC understands the difference between the World Wide Web and other media." to "further improve the BBC's reputation for promoting valid discussion and providing quality services".

New para:
Self-policing of content will always be more accurate than moderation, simply because the best people to judge the acceptability of material are those who are reading it and writing it. Context is everything, and the community will always have a much, much better understanding of the local context than the moderators. Also, if someone writes unacceptable material, and it is found and removed by self-policing, then they will be much lowered in the opinion of anyone who read or heard about the material. The resulting social penalty is a serious deterrent for people who might otherwise repeat their mistake. A moderator's form email explaining what rules have been breached has *much* less impact. Currently, since people know that everything on the site has been read and passed by a moderator, they are much less inclined to complain, even about clearly unacceptable material.
--

What about that? I think that emphasises the benefits of self-policing - and why it is actually *better* than proactive moderation at keeping a site clean. I could write about five times the length, but I want to keep this tight. I'll elaborate on my own printed copy of the petition, and I encourage everyone else to do the same on theirs, giving examples and their own personal take on the situation.

Lucinda,

I added the "system relying more on reactive moderation *and self-policing*" and "further improve the BBC's reputation for promoting valid discussion and providing quality services."

For that new paragraph, what if we worked it in after point #5...

====
We believe that self-policing of content will always be more accurate than moderation, simply because the best people to judge the acceptability of material are those who are reading it and writing it. Context is everything, and the community will always have a much better understanding of the local context than the moderators. Also, if someone writes unacceptable material, and it is found and removed by self-policing, then they will be much lowered in the opinion of anyone who read or heard about the material. The resulting social penalty is a serious deterrent for people who might otherwise repeat their mistake. A moderator's form email explaining what rules have been breached has *much* less impact. Currently, since people know that everything on the site has been read and passed by a moderator, they are much less inclined to complain, even about clearly unacceptable material.

We believe that these freedoms are possible and feasible with a system relying more on reactive moderation and self-policing...
====

I only suggest moving the paragraph up so that we can end with the powerful section "...On the contrary, we believe that such a change would attract a wider audience to the BBC, and would further improve the BBC's reputation for promoting valid discussion and providing quality services.

Thank you for your consideration."

Also I was slightly confused by "removed by self-policing." Sounds as if researchers could directly remove each others' contributions. How about: "removed by request of other researchers"?

Good points, all of them.

Good. I updated the petition on the page again. I'll make a live version tonight and start publicizing it.

The petition is a GO.

To everyone: thanks for all your input. The petition is LIVE! Please check it out, sign it and stamp it and give it to your postmistress ASAP!

Got Moderation?
Show how you feel about it. Sign the
Petition for Greater Freedom on h2g2.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A544943

Good - will check out and sign shortly....