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

As far as the argument goes, What Ben said. Jeez, this gets old real quick.

I'll have a pint if you're buying, EV...

Lucinda, hmm, well...I'll think about letting you know on that one, ok? I don't want to start a war about my personal opinion and the Edited Guide...

I think the question of whether applying the BBCi guidelines correctly will apply to the un-edited guide and forum postings as well as to the Edited guide is an interesting question.

I am quite happy to have the BBCi guidelines applied correctly, but it doesn't make sense to me to have guidelines and only apply them to a part of the website when the whole of the website is visible to everybody.

As long as we know *what* those guidelines are...

Right, it has been noted by a couple of people that I have been absent from this thread, which probably seemed a little odd, given that one of my entries was one of the first ones to disappear.

The reason for that was simple: I didn't have anything constructive to say on the matter, so I kept quiet.
My thoughts on the matter are-

A) It's a damn shame that after so many steps forward, reactive moderation, giving us back the right to post links in threads, the discussion which resulted in Ben's excellent Short Guide getting into the EG, this, which feels like a step backwards into tighter controls happens

B) I can understand *why* someone get the jitters- it's not *just* licence review time, it's also 'oh bugger we really pxssxd off the Government' time - Auntie is under a Hell of a lot of fire right now.

C) We aren't going to change this decision- that much is clear. What we ought to be concentrating our energies on is coming up with a workable alternative to the grid system, rather than bitching. Fun though bitching may be, it's not likely to convince them upstairs we're a mature and responsible community, now is it? It has been suggested that a system of examples be used to clarify what it meant by each of the headers used in the grid system. I like this idea, learn from example. Can I suggest we put effort into firming up the idea, so we can say to the Eds "here, this is what we've come up with, this is the sort of thing we want".

It can never happen it's a question of interpretation.
The objective has to be to make the quality of the site such that rules are unnecessary.

Self moderation is a prime concern and as such the first one to act on any guide lines has to be the researcher. This applies to every word that a researcher writes.
It follows :-

1 Researchers must be aware that guide lines exist.
2 Researchers must understand that guide lines can effect what they are doing.
3 Researchers who see a problem would be advised to resolve that problem to their own satisfaction. If they are unable to do this and doubt remains then they should consult with someone rather than take unilateral action.

The rest is in the hands of officialdom. In this regard it is fair to say that it is how guide lines are administered that matters. If a researcher is expected to self moderate his activities within specific guide lines, then all levels of officialdom must exercise similar self control.

As the holder of a free TV licence I feel honour bound to speak up for the BBC.
All researchers need to recognise that they have a responsibity to h2g2 who have a responsibility to BBCi with regard to the make up and content of the site, but the ultimate responsibility rests with the BBC ? I doubt if the hierarchy of the BBC have any knowledge of events that have taken place. It may be possible that someone in BBCi but outside DNA/h2g2 is aware of the problem. IMHO the problem is due to internal ramifications. No way is the BBC trying to impose it's will on a few well intentioned researchers. Did the BBC need to rescue h2g2 ? but that's another story.

All I can say to that is the above two posts have my applause and admiration for their clear thinking and common sense.

Let's go to work, people - let's get this community pulling in the same direction - experience has shown that when we pull together, we pull hard and we pull well.

Fair doos. I apologise to one and all for being snappish yesterday.

I confess that I take as my base-line the assumption that the BBC like what they see of h2g2, but that they don't put in the effort to see that much. (This site is e-f**king-normous, and a pig to navigate if you haven't used it before, and there is no reason why any BBC employee other than the Italics should do so).

The other baseline that I take is Blues' useful comment that the BBC should be seen as a publisher with a house-style and a brand. In fact, working on the UnderGuide has made this extremely clear to me. The original ideals of the UG were "good writing in whatever form" (I paraphrase) but I for one find myself expecting entries which only deviate from the EG in minor ways, and veering towards them in my choice. (Pace ~jwf~ - you wuz right).

Ok - direct questions for the Italics here.

1) Are we looking at ways of dealing with the guidlines behind the guidelines BEFORE an entry is picked and subbed and gains EG status, or are we looking at ways of dealing with reviews by the BBC AFTER an entry is Edited and published?

(Dumb questions sweep away assumptions, and provide a baseline).

2) Are the Writing Guidelines themselves currently under review?

3) Are final decisions going to be made on a case-by-case basis? And will those decisions be made using pre-determined guidelines or subjective judgement calls?

(Subjective judgement calls are fine imho; the Editors are paid to make them, such as the one which was made about 7 Card W**kstain. The Editor's Decision is Final, and all that. We just need to know the ground-rules).

4) If an entry is deemed unacceptable, is it ok for the Author to make changes and re-submit it to PR for comment and feedback? I know PR isn't a workshop, but the feedback there is one of the strengths of h2g2.

5) Will the BBC be reviewing un-Edited entries, such as the ones in the Post and the ones in the UnderGuide, as well as Edited Entries?

6) Realistically, how often will post-publication reviews take place?

There. Those are the only questions that are burning in my mind at the moment.

I am sorry if I have missed the answers, either explicit or implicit, in this or other threads. Although I care about h2g2 a great deal, I have a RL which is spectacularly distracting right now.

B

*waits patiently for the answer to number five*

Ben, we've all been a little snappy, I think. It just shows that we care, in our differing ways, is all.

And they seem like a pretty reasonable questions, though I'm guessing the answer to number 6 in a big unknown...

Hello

Thank you for all your comments. Apologies for not having responded earlier. We have collated your questions and are discussing them now, so we should have some answers for you soon.

The Eds

*looks satistfied*

Oooh...

Excellent news, and thank you for keeping us informed.

That sounds almost like actual genuine useful progress, excellent

H2g2 needs to see themselves in perspective. Whilst they may be a senior partner among DNA sites. They do not and, as has been proved, can not stand alone. There is an urgent need for h2g2 to take a much wider look at the direction they want to go. They need to recognise that they no longer stand alone and come to terms with the fact they are just a community within a much wider world. They are a proud community with standards and practices of their own that they need to maintain and improve in order to survive and grow. It is essential that their own house is in pristine condition but it is even more essential that it is maintained that way and that nothing is allowed to denigrate it.
Within the DNA Sites h2g2 reigns supreme. Entry level to other sites is a watered down adaptation of h2g2 principles, sometimes with a bit of added glitch. People who enter these sites need to look at h2g2 as an aspiration. In most cases entries/researchers from h2g2 can and do form a solid foundation for new sites to build on. H2g2 needs to go forward hand in hand with BBCi and the Hub to create an extended W.W.W. community. Lets face it that as new DNA sites are introduced they can be looked at as 'groups' within a wider expanded h2g2. Hang on to the aspect of the Guided Entry, but all other aspects of the community should be allowed to grow along with the evolutionary needs of newly created DNA sites.

Very well spoken Ancient Brit!
And that's exactly where community-based schemes like the UnderGuide come into the equation.

Can I say that is just about the most intelligent and cogent posting I have *ever* seen on h2g2 about this site and and it's relationship to the BBC as whole. Actually probably just about on any subject...

And it ties in with something I was thinking last night which is tat although we ar a senior partner in DNA, as a community we are *still* less than five years old. That the community means so many different things to so many different people, as we have seen during these discussions is proof of the dynanism that exists here, and makes a pretty fine tribute to DNA himself, in my humble opinion.

But every community, especially 'new' ones (and we are still new, people, just out of the toddler stage, really) is going to have problems. There wil always be new ways of doing things - old practices may have to be abandoned, but that need not be a negative step as Ancient Brit points out.

We noticed that there has been some discussion with regard to a date of birth feature on h2g2. The h2g2 Editors would prefer h2g2 to be site suitable for all to view at all times, and Blues Shark made some very good points about unregistered / logged out users. However, other DNA sites might be interested in a feature like this so perhaps this is something to raise on the Hub?


And now to Ben's questions.

>>>1) Are we looking at ways of dealing with the guidlines behind the guidelines BEFORE an entry is picked and subbed and gains EG status, or are we looking at ways of dealing with reviews by the BBC AFTER an entry is Edited and published?

The grid system was proposed as a way for Researchers to see if the subject they were thinking of writing about could be controversial. As your response shows, the Community have a strong awareness of the boundaries with regard to taste and decency, but do like to sail close to the wind. In the case of the entries that that were taken down recently, it is fair to say that at the time we thought they were fine to put into the Edited Guide. However, it was pointed out to us that we were interpreting the Guidelines too loosely and we took this on board and reviewed the decision. If we are alerted to edited content by a member of the public or a member of the BBC we always take their complaint seriously and review our decision.



>>>2) Are the Writing Guidelines themselves currently under review?

No they are not. As the Editors of the site and employees of the BBC, it is up to us to make sure that content of the Edited Guide - which is flagged up as having the stamp of approval of the BBC - sits within the Guidelines for BBCi. Of course it would be great if the Community would help us in this process but at the end of the day, the buck stops here.



>>>3) Are final decisions going to be made on a case-by-case basis? And will those decisions be made using pre-determined guidelines or subjective judgement calls? (Subjective judgement calls are fine imho; the Editors are paid to make them, such as the one which was made about 7 Card W**kstain. The Editor's Decision is Final, and all that. We just need to know the ground-rules).

Yes, decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis. The Editors will review the Entries in light of the BBCi Producer Guidelines and then make a subjective decision in each case. At the end of the day, it is up to us to make a decision.



>>>4) If an entry is deemed unacceptable, is it ok for the Author to make changes and re-submit it to PR for comment and feedback? I know PR isn't a workshop, but the feedback there is one of the strengths of h2g2.

This would very much depend on the entry in question. Some are suitable for reworking, others might not be. So it is difficult to give a definitive answer.



>>>5) Will the BBC be reviewing un-Edited entries, such as the ones in the Post and the ones in the UnderGuide, as well as Edited Entries?

There will be no systematic review of unedited entries as resources are finite and this task would simply be too big for our team to undertake. In the case of the unedited guide, we rely on reactive moderation to alert us to Entries and postings that break the House Rules. With regard to the UnderGuide, as you know, the Entries are looked at by an Italic as part of the process of the UG editorial process. With regard to the Post, we rely on the Post Editors to keep an eye on their content and they are very good at flagging potentially troublesome entries.



>>>6) Realistically, how often will post-publication reviews take place?

It is a continual process. As part of the Editorial process we look at content and decide on its suitability. If we are alerted to edited content by a member of the public or a member of the BBC we always take their complaint seriously and review our decision.

The Eds

So things will stay as they were, only that you interpret the guidelines a little more strictly?!

Thanks for the feedback!

Thank you

That makes everything much clearer.

... and thanks for the vote of confidence also.

shazz