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

I don't see where the concern about punishments come from? It's a failed link not a transgression of any of the other rules.
Links are failed all the time because they are broken or such. I don't know that anybody is ever punished for them.
Besides, as this clearly arose from a *legacy* piece, where would the punishment come in?
Methinks you see s that are not there.

There's no concern, which I thought I said? Just clarifying my position: I've complained about retroactive punishment before, and I wouldn't want people to think I was being inconsistent.

> "I don't know that anybody is ever punished for [links]"

I got a warning once. And some bans have been partly down to posting links to unsuitable material. Make of that what you will.

Given that every case is treated 'on its own merits' (and I have no reason to doubt that), I'd guess I'd make not a lot of that.
This clearly isn't unsuitable by reason of content, just by reason of language. Besides, it is a *legacy* posting. I doubt TPTB are going to start indulging in a campaign against those who broke the rules pre-Rupert, now that the rules have been changed post-Rupert. (If that makes sense?)

"It will only take one link to slip through that is unsuitable and the tabloids will have a field day with it."

Besides the flap over BBC linking to BMP, another piece of evidence that the above statement is exaggerated is that comedy television show where they elicited scripted quotes about pedophilia from a lot of politicians and celebrities. I haven't seen it, and only read about the thing on h2g2, but what kind of impact did that have on BBC? Is the tv series still on the air, or was it cancelled due to viewer outrage? I know it's a different medium, but it proves the point that the BBC is not as fragile as all that.

It's reasonable to want to avoid outrages like that, and there will always be some people who want to find little outrages. But you'd think a mature organization that has been around a few decades would learn to reach a happy medium between pleasing their customers or users, and fending off complaints from crackpots. It seems like they're not just trying to reduce the number of inevitable complaints from crackpots -- they're trying to eliminate *all* complaints from crackpots, an unattainable goal. Maybe the problem is that BBC doesn't need to please us as users. Their only customers are their bosses and the people who approve budgets.

Linda, you're right: when staffers keep judgements consistent, it makes the rules easier for us to understand and follow. Wouldn't it be nice if they excised some of those strict rules, brought h2g2 closer to the standards of other online communities, and made your job ten times simpler? My complaint isn't with you or the other h2g2 staffers who have to interpret the rules. It's with the people higher up who set those rules to outlandish standards.

Chris Morris' Brass Eye Special on child abuse was Channel 4, not BBC, so you'll forgive me if I choose not to debate that point.

The BBC has consistently bottled on projects like that though-Chris Morris got his start on BBC but they rejected Brass Eye and he took it the opposition. They refused the last six scripts that Johnny Speight wrote for an Alf Garnett series, stating that they felt it was innappropriate for a modern audience (though given recent events in Burnely, Alf looks more relevant than ever to me ).

Recent years have seen a consistent 'pulling in of horns' at the BBC as the continue to drive towards anodyne, inoffensive entertainment for the masses. I don't see any prospect of that changing anytime soon.

> BMP
Typo. I meant BNP = British National Party.

I was going to make the same point, actually. Channel 4 makes lots of great programs, AND regularly pisses off the tabloids, and there doesn't appear to be a clash between these activities. Nor does it seem to put the state funding of Channel 4 into jeapordy. I don't see why the BBC can't adopt a similarly robust attitude. Instead they seem to live in total, I might say "pathological", fear of criticism.

This point was driven home to me when I watched "Have I Got News For You". Apparently the BBC have been 'forced' to apologise for a joke on one of their websites saying (something like) in Korea, a dog isn't just for Christmas - it's for breakfast, lunch and tea. So, sorry again.

> "Recent years have seen a consistent 'pulling in of horns' at the BBC as the continue to drive towards anodyne, inoffensive entertainment for the masses."

And would you say this is a good thing or a bad thing? I think this is a bad thing. When I find things bad, I tend to say so, in the foolish belief that I live in a democracy where my opinions matter. Sure, one extra person pointing out how craven these rules are won't make much difference, but from small ripples do mighty tsunamis grow.

-Xanthia (who doesn't want a geography lesson on where tsunamis *really* come from...)

... the BBC needs to evolve. For at least a million years.

The title of this forum has been making me think of Grolsch adverts for too long now...
-MyRedDice

Like I said, the only info I had about the Brass Eye controversy was what I read on h2g2. And I thought Channel Four was a part of BBC. Isn't that what Mike Meyers means when he sings about "BBC One! BBC Two!" etc. [This is a joke. Don't bother replying to this bit.]

"Recent years have seen a consistent 'pulling in of horns' at the BBC as the continue to drive towards anodyne, inoffensive entertainment for the masses. I don't see any prospect of that changing anytime soon."

The fact that BBC acts skittish in all media doesn't prove that their paranoia is justified. That Brass Eye thing doesn't prove my point, but the flap over the BNP link is evidence that tax-payers aren't really waiting to pounce on BBC and destroy it over something as minor as this.

I think if BBC allowed h2g2 to function as most online communities do (reactive moderation, allowing any language, disclaiming responsibility for what viewers may find off-site at the ends of links), a few ignorant people would clutch their pearls and rant about BBC being offensive (as they always will, as I'm sure they do right now anyway!). The majority of people would judge BBC against other websites they've seen, and would recognize that an online community can't be run like a tv broadcast. The majority of people would wonder what took them so long. If there were any complaints about it at all, they would die down within a week, or within a few days, and we could get on with a strong community, instead of trying to communicate via sign-language with one hand tied behind our backs.

>I think if BBC allowed h2g2 to function as most online communities do<
You'd have no transgression procedures, no right of appeal, no treating of cases on individual merits, in fact no interaction with the editorial staff at all.
Think about it.

>I think if BBC allowed h2g2 to function as most online communities do<
You'd have no transgression procedures, no right of appeal, no treating of cases on individual merits, in fact no interaction with the editorial staff at all.
Think about it.
Mike Meyers, that well known expert on British Broadcasting-wasn't he funny once?

I think you just missed the point.

The main bbc website is like a conventional published magazine. It has oodles of constraints placed upon it.

When h2g2 came back after rupert, it tried to make the editors run h2g2 like the main website, even though there was little in common between the two sites.

If h2g2 had a similar set of constraints to other sites like www.beeb.net for example, then there would be less problems.

as it is, the lawyers for the bit of the beeb which owns h2g2 try and treat it like a published magazine, and get cought out regularly by us users.

NOTE: I am not advocating mass import of beeb.net rules, only the more relaxed attitude, which the editors have had some success in getting changed.

The difficulty lies not in that the rules weren't imported wholesale. The BeeB has *consistently* allowed more leeway to H2G2 than any of it's other sites. After all, it wasn't that long ago that *all URL's* in conversations were banned...
Like it, lump it, loath it, H2G2 is cutting edge not just in terms of the DNA engine, but also in terms of how it operates and its continued development as a community area.
It may no longer be what DNA himself had in mind, it may not be what you all originally joined, but it's still better than other BeeB sites, and certainly better than anything other than an out and out mailing lists, though they too have their problems.

I agree, they have made some progress. But it could be so much more, and there is no rational reason to hold it back. The only thing holding back H2G2 is unfounded fears by decision-makers at BBC who think that h2g2 should be controlled tightly like a tv or radio broadcast, and who have little concern or understanding for what a community or website can be.

Compared with other sites within BBC, h2g2 may be "cutting edge." That's like saying the current rulers of China are progessive about human rights compared with rulers of the Twentieth Century. It may be a valid statement, but not a good reason to stop pushing for democracy, human rights, or a good online community.

"[if BBC allowed h2g2 to function as most online communities do, then]
You'd have no transgression procedures, no right of appeal, no treating of cases on individual merits, in fact no interaction with the editorial staff at all."

I haven't had much contact with the censors at other online communities, so I can't judge how responsive they are. Our right of appeal at h2g2 is a nice showing by the staff, but by the T&Cs of this site, they can cut us off just as unilaterally and arbitrarily as most other websites if they wanted to.

Is there some rational reason that a website couldn't have the positive aspects of h2g2 and the positive aspects of less restricted online communities: reactive moderation (by which I mean languages, images and text would all be allowed by default until or unless they caused problems), and still have a responsive, fair-dealing editorial staff?

Re: Mike Meyers, yes, I tried to make a self-deprecating joke about my expertise on BBC coming from Austin Powers. Your joke about Mike Meyers would have been funnier if I hadn't already pointed it out before you. I'm hoping "Goldmember" will be his last installment of Austin Powers, and he might try some more original things after that horse has been beaten to death and beyond. But if you can seriously claim that h2g2 is "cutting edge" without writing a after it, then our tastes in comedians or actors probably won't match either.

>Is there some rational reason that a website couldn't have the positive aspects of h2g2 and the positive aspects of less restricted online communities: reactive moderation (by which I mean languages, images and text would all be allowed by default until or unless they caused problems), and still have a responsive, fair-dealing editorial staff?<

Well, the answer to that question is pretty simple-because it's run by the BBC. This is how they want the experiment to progress. Your alternative, in the eyes of the BBC, is pretty clear...

> "Well, the answer to that question is pretty simple-because it's run by the BBC. This is how they want the experiment to progress. Your alternative, in the eyes of the BBC, is pretty clear..."

Do you believe that the BBC are so unresponsive to user concerns, that they will not even consider progressing the experiment differently?

-Xanthia

You have evidence to the contrary? I don't.
Of the (alleged) 80,000 or so H2G2 researchers, there are precious few (the SBVM has how many members-less than a dozen? You'll correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure )who actively complain about the type of thing you are talking about here.
The BBC should allow itself to pressured by a dozen or so users (at least a quarter of whom are not paying a licence fee, which may or may not be relevant, depending on your point of view) but not by the National press? "you'd think a mature organization that has been around a few decades would learn to reach a happy medium between pleasing their customers or users, and fending off complaints from crackpots." To quote Subcom earlier...

I stand corrected. 17 self-confessed members (though one of doubtful standing), 5 at least of which are foreign nationals.
So nearly a third of the SBVM don't pay towards the BBC...

I haven't counted them all lately, but if I remember correctly, there are over 100 more "crackpots" who indicated their feelings by signing the Petition for Greater Freedom. The discussion thread with most of the online signatures is at http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/F66559?thread=110865&skip=120&show=20 if anyone feels like counting, but there are also a few people who left their virtual signatures in other discussion threads. Still a drop in the bucket, but the list includes some of the most active members on h2g2. I could also find you some quotes in other discussion threads in which Mark or Peta have intimated their feelings about the restrictions by hinting that they would have put them in place before BBC took over if they really thought any of them were necessary. (Hoping I'm not misrepresenting. I think it was Mark who hinted at this. But it just stands to reason that they could have put the restrictions on language and images in place before the Beeb if they had wanted to, and they didn't do it.) My only point in bringing that up is that, if we're all classifiable as "crackpots" who want to return to a less restricted h2g2 with reactive moderation, then Mark and possibly others on the h2g2 staff may be hoping for the same eventual "crackpot" outcomes. Deidzoeb Lowest Caste Untouchable for not paying for this service, opinions not worthy of anyone's time.

Ho ho ho. Sarcasm. I like that. Just for the record perhaps you could explain the difference between the Sun and the Mail being crackpots when *they* want to pressure the BBC and you not being a crackpot when *you* want to pressure the BBC?

My point wasn't that as non licence fee payers that your views weren't valuable, or valued, merely that your original point was that the BBC should stand up for itself against the tabloid press. Certainly it should, but I'd also expect it to stand up for itself against pressure groups, particularly those that include a number of non-fee payers-I can see the Daily Mail having a field day with the idea that an unsuaitable link had been allowed because of pressure brought by an American user of this sight. It isn't pleasant but it's a fact.
I don't doubt that the editors would all prefer to go back to a more liberal system. For the amount it would affect the day to day use of the site, I'd expect most users wouldn't even notice if most of the systems were changed back. The fact of the matter is that they, and we, wouldn't have a system at all if not for the BBC. For that reason alone, for the time being the BBC gets to call the shots.