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

So editors,

Out of interest does FB's sanitised version qualify for the edited guide.

Hi FerrettBadger

>>>Out of interest does FB's sanitised version qualify for the edited guide.

This has been discussed in more then one thread and our decision is not to accept this into the Edited Guide. However, should the situation change we will let the Community know.

Fair enough I suppose; nut as far as I could see the sanitised version was no more rude than a Carry On film (which the bbc show before the watershed), just innuendo. But still I am sure all this has been debated by you in another thread somewhere.

P.S

If such a discussion does exist anyone point me in the right direction?

I don't think the discussion really exists as such - at least not in an informative way. People kept asking for more info and the editors kept ignoring this. They did eventually demand that FB remove the article from PR but without explaining why it couldn't be made acceptable or when that information might be available. They just said it was in the way there despite having successfully ignored its presence in PR and then the scout picks list for weeks.

Editors, thanks for that explaination.

SEF, regarding the BBS system, it's never worked properly for me. If I'm logged in to "Mustardland" (the Archers BBS) I can only ever see the titles of postings, but never the content. So, I have to log out, read the threads as an unknown user, memorise the title and content of the posting I want to reply to, log back in again, find it and reply to it "blind". I've queried the boards on several occasions, but nobody has been able to figure out what's going on. I hope they embrace DNA soon.

Wouldn't it be easier if you left a browser window with the thread open and reply from a new window?

Possibly, as long as I only need to look at one "page" of the thread when I'm replying. Changing pages would make it reflect the new status of my login cookie.

Ummm ... use two different browers, then.

I found that a lot of the BBC doesn't automatically notice the cookie for me (there are various intermittant cookie problems as reported elsewhere). I long ago forced my IE windows to run as separate processes to avoid it bringing down the whole of Windows quite so easily and it may have something to do with that. Anyhow, if I spawn a new window off an existing one it knows who I am, but if I open a fresh blank window to the BBC pages it (and anything spawned from it) doesn't recognise my cookie. I haven't actually tried being logged in as 2 separate IDs at once and then switching pages.

"They did eventually demand that FB remove the article from PR"

If it has been removed from PR, where is it now?

A1085636 is the replacement which went to PR again. It now says it is in the Alternative Writing Workshop. However, there was more than one "clone" around (not all by FB, U189494).

but of course, the ongoing problem is that we still don't have a reason for it being removed, only a comment that that is the decision.

As far as I understand it, the rason is that the Italics had a more relaxed view of the editorial guidelines than they ought to have had. from EdPol's view the entries which were removed should have never made it into the guide in the first place. So EdPol gives the Italics a crack of the editorial whip and a stern talking to and the Italics get the idea.
Now, with their newly-found understanding of the BBCi internal guidelines they follow a different interpretation of the HR/t&c.


So the reason is a decrepancy between the Italics' und EdPol's understanding of the BBC guidelines.
Easy as that.

OK, now explain "Farming Today"

I'm serious. They dedicated an entire early-morning programme to the art of "Dogging", a.k.a. extreme alfresco sex. No mention of farming, food or any of the other things the programme exists to promote. And I missed it.

I just caught the inevetable complaints on "Feedback".

"So the reason is a decrepancy between the Italics' und EdPol's understanding of the BBC guidelines"

fine, so from that you can tell exactly what was wrong with it, why it is not for discussion as to the things which need changing to bring it within thw edpol guidelines, what those guidelines are, and a whole host of other information we need to make informed comments in peer review so that all the work isn't passed to the subed who then has to pass it to the editors who then have to pass it to edpol.

no, I didn't think you could.

As I understand it, the Italicv gave us the Grid as a discussion document to help with exactly those matters. We rejected it of hand. They've withdrawn it.

They are now considering other ways of giving us help with th the new interpretations of the Editorial Guidelines.

And the 'Farming Today' point is all very well, but presumably responsibility for that rersts with the editorial team for 'Farming Today'.

I don't see what relevance it has to our present problems at all, to be honest.

It's clear from the reply FB got from Ed Pol that they view responsibility for each site/programme to lie with the individual Editorial teams.

It was obvious from the way that previous discussions were dealt with that thegrid was a dead duck before it even went on the site.

the simple way to deal with the problem is to contnue properly with the current policy of hiding the page where something is objectionable, and then telling the person who is responsible what is wrong with it.

they can then either get around the objections (as was done with the molotov cocktail entry) or decide that they are fundamental to the article, and delete it.

either works, and because the author will usually say why it got pulled then we the users of peer review will usually get a good idea of where the boundaries are.

it is this refusal to enter a discussion which is causing the problem. they won't say why it was pulled (the boss said so might be accurate, but is meaningless to anyone but someone who wants to shift the blame to the boss).

They must have some idea as to the new interpretation of policy, especially as regards the entry they pulled, so deal with it on a case by case basis trying to be as open about it as the realities of the case allow.

In fact this particular case can now be firmly laid at Natalie's door, because it is her continued refusal to talk about it other than to say NO which is causing the problems.