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

That first Zaphodista page and "list of demands" was written 19 March 2001, a little over six months ago. Has any good come of it? Will any good come of it? What's next?

...Right. Guess that answers my question then.

sorry subcomm - I meant to respond earlier, but got sidetracked...

I think the Zaphs have achieved a number of important things:
* provided a (semi-)legitimate outlet for people to express displeasure at the current state of affairs
* demonstrated the depth of feeling on these issues
* provided an alternative for those who are dissatisfied to simply leaving (as was repeatedly suggested by 'loyalists').
* provided information on work-arounds, on how the rules are being applied, and more.
* debate on the nature of rights has shaped the view of many about the relationship between researchers and editors
* this was the first time _ever_ in the history of h2g2 that a demand for more rights has not been answered with 'you signed the terms, so tough' or 'our website - our rules'.

Would we have got the start of the TransVol scheme by now without Zaphodista pressure? I doubt it. There are other concessions that have been made - on copyright, for example, that would probably not have been instigated so speedily otherwise. The insistance of many early Zaphodistas on *proper* explanations for moderation decisions led to the moderation helpdesk, and now the email policy. Without that, it may well have reverted by default to the standard BBC policy on such matters - "our word is law, deal with it".

Is it time to formally wind up the rebellion? Perhaps. Many members have left, while others have moderated their positions, or simply given up. Fragilis once argued that it was better for any h2g2 group to have a properly defined finishing point, and perhaps she is right here. Your decision...

Best nickname I've heard so far is "Zaphos." Puts one in mind of Sappho.

Providing an outlet for people to express displeasure at the current state of affairs benefits? This function is good for helping the BBC maintain status quo, not good for getting anything changed. This could almost be rephrased as "distracting people from expressing their displeasure where it would do the most good."

I hope you're right that this group has accomplished some positive things, but I'm not sure if the Italics have really done anything differently because of our pressure, or if they just got better at public relations.

"Is it time to formally wind up the rebellion?"

Did I miss the announcement that censorship has been formally repealed on h2g2? Then I see no reason to formally wind up the Zaphodistas. Although the group will not be very active anymore (at least, not activated by my effort), I like to think that people will still keep signing up to the Zaphodistas every few weeks or months even with the current level of inactivity. It could go on like this for years as a slow trickle. Maybe a few excited people will make it active later.

My other pipedream is that the BBC will allow h2g2 to continue for a while as it is, and in maybe ten or twenty years, when someone gets into BBC who has a better feel for what people want or expect out of the web, they'll return h2g2 to the normally low levels of intrusion that we saw pre-BBC. Then I'll get to say, "I TOLD YOU SO," and we'll all look back at this and laugh. And we'll get to read all the hilarious archived discussions here about the "necessity" of BBC's restrictions. Like when you read about old risque bathing suits that shockingly revealed skin all the way up to the knee.

Meanwhile, I have stories to write that can't be posted here, conversations I'd like to engage in that can't be discussed here, art and photos that can't be exhibited here, etc. I'm limiting myself to discussions on h2g2, because it's not worth wasting my time on guide entries, wrestling with moderation. And changing people's opinions about the war seems like a more important matter now than struggling with censorship.

Maybe the Zaphodistas will go into a dormancy period like the critters in Jurassic Park. (Okay, I haven't actually seen any of those movies all the way thru, but I assume they're quiet or dormant or something in those periods between the sequels.) But I see no reason to formally wind up the process just because I'm exhausted by it and a few others have quit. If we leave a spark of rebellion here, maybe others will pick it up after a year or two and fan it to life again.

"Fragilis once argued that it was better for any h2g2 group to have a properly defined finishing point, and perhaps she is right here."

I missed that one. What was the reasoning behind that?

I think it was the standard arguments about closure, defined beginning and end, and so forth. I'm sure you can ask...

> "This function is good for helping the BBC maintain status quo, not good for getting anything changed."

I disagree. Providing such an outlet, allowing people to talk sensibly to those who hold the opposite view, is a valuable viewpoint. You can believe in animal rights without sending mail-bombs to animal researchers, and you're more likely to create effective change that way.