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

[This is a reply to Pattern Chaser's question from the "sign up here!" thread.]

As for Douglas Adams' feelings about h2g2 under Auntie Beeb, a few of us have posted messages on his website (the URL of which you'll have to guess because h2g2 won't allow me to communicate it in a message post). Adams only replies to a few of the hundreds of messages that get posted there every month or week, but I suspect he has read our questions and complaints, and stayed quiet for his own reasons.

I mean no disrespect to Adams, and I don't want to start any new arguments or controversy in such close proximity to the petition.

I'm trying to look at this not as a matter of who's to "blame" at BBC or among the h2g2 staff, not a matter of whether Adams approves the changes at h2g2. In considering this petition, all you have to ask yourself is whether you agree with the statements and requests made in the petition.

We will never know....

A sad day for us all.

[Disclaimer: This is only the third post/entry I've read in the last three days that has naught to do with the terrible tragedy of Douglas Noel Adams' passing, and it was a direct chain from the first to here, so please do not confuse the following issue for a detachment from that sadness. As you say, this issue has nothing to do with Him.]

The use of the term "provided that the [whatever] does not break the BBC's standards" negates much of the petition. For example, if an URL passes the beeb's 'AUP' then most likely it -will- be allowed on an entry. It's the beeb's 'standards' (at least for h2g2) which need changing. I can well understand "provided that the image does not break UK law", considering the site is produced in the UK.

I can even understand a non-commercial clause -IF- the URL is used in an entry for the sole purpose of drawing customers to a commercial site. However, if I should, for example, write in an (mildly technical) entry or a conversation, "I find that I've had the best luck with with UPS (Uninterruptable Power Supply) and surge protection equipment from APC ( [URL removed by moderator])[I know that URL will be removed, but I think you'll get the point anyway], but YMMV," or point to an URL which might be a white paper on a product which happens to be linked to the manufacturer's commercial site, then what I'm doing is sharing experience/knowledge and letting the reader make up their own mind. This should not be discouraged.

Of course, the part which reads:

I can well understand "provided that the image does not break UK law"

should have been changed to:

I can well understand "provided that the [whatever] does not break UK law"

>The use of the term "provided that the [whatever] does not break the BBC's standards" negates much of the petition.<

Hopefully someone at BBC with critical reasoning skills will read this petition before they hand it to the lawyers. I think they'll get the point, that we want more freedom written into the BBC's standards. Maybe those parts should have said "provided that [something] does not break the BBC's OTHER standards." (For example, we want to be able to post photos or original images, but we're not suggesting that copyright theft should be okay, or that explicitly pornographic or violent images should be allowed.)

But if read strictly by lawyers, then "not breaking the BBC's standards" would rule out any changes to the current BBC standards. Then again, the lawyers have shown their ability to overlook key statements already, such as "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." If they believed these disclaimers, then they could let us talk crap and it would only make us look bad, not them. This seems to be the fundamental issue underlying the overblown policy on discussion of the UK General Election.

Sorry about that tangent. Good point, but you lost me with all those TLA's (Three-Letter Acronyms). Wait, I found your point again. Restricting commercial URLs has a bummer of an impact on some legitimate discussions. Agreed.

What we really need is for some benevolent millionaire to buy h2g2 out from BBC, so the BBC can stop worrying about us and we can get back to harmlessly talking crap like we used to.

If you wish to edit the copy that you yourself send to the BBC, please do so. If you'd like to add your own comments to the back of it, please do that too. I'm still deciding what to add to the back of mine.

However, there is a difference between the BBC's standards, and the BBC's policies. The BBC's standards do not say, for example, that every picture of a soldier with a gun must have a flower sticking out the end of it. The BBC's policies, as implemented on h2g2, would appear to do so.

What we need is for Peta to get a heavy enough stack of petitions to be able to whack some sense into the BBC higher management.

"What we need is for Peta to get a heavy enough stack of petitions to be able to whack some sense into the BBC higher management."

Please note that MyRedDice is not a member of the Zaphodistas, a group which does not condone the kind of violence suggested above.

Please note that while the BBC are happy to remove words which don't advocate violence on the grounds that they advocate violence, they are equally happy to leave in words which do advocate violence.

I know, I know: I'm in stuck-record mode again...

I'm not alltogether happy with this standard-addition to every paragraf "provided this... does not break the BBC's standard or UK law" as I want freedom of speech for everybody everywhere all the time!

(Try exchanging "UK law" with "law of The Peoples Republic of China" or Irak or Indonesia and you'll probably see what I mean, right?)

However, this is not a perfect world. And if I was editor of my own newspaper I would certainly demand the right to reject postings that were in favor of racism, nazism, fascism, sexism, child labour and a few other things.

I believe even those postings should be allowed somewehere but in the free world the autohos of those are free to found their own media (or should be, anyway)!

So, yes, I'll sign it! Just wanted to get that off my chest