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

It has been a long standing practice that if someone in the community thinks something unfit, they check it against the House Rules and press the complaint button if they think PERSONALLY it should go.
That also was the time the editors explicitly instructed us NEVER to complain about something we find OK ourselfs, but someone else might possibly find insulting.

I never said I expect to be able to post everything and anything I like. This is supposed to be a community consisting mostly of reasonably adult people, so I expect rules according to that.
If the BBC wants this to become a community of teletubbies, let them say so, so we can look for a new one.

Speaking as a mother of pre-teens I really can't see why the removed entries would have been deemed harmful for children. Presupposing the kids in question would bother to read them, and understand the references, they would more than likely just forget them.

Have you any idea of the sort of stuff kids find (deliberately, even) when unsupervised? Better to find amusing, well-informed, non-salacious articles like those.

"the fact is we're now being asked to consider how appropriate some of our content is for a wider audience"

Jimster, the italics previously said they weren't aware of the reason why the articles had been removed. They also said they had no new guidelines.

Are you now claiming that there are new guidelines? If so, what has changed, can we see them and under what clause(s) did the articles fail? Researchers need to know this in order to fix those articles and avoid doing again whatever was suddenly deemed to be wrong which wasn't wrong before.

Also when you say "we", do you mean the BBC, the h2g2 staff or are you trying to speak for researchers?

Jimster: "But the fact is we're now being asked to consider how appropriate some of our content is for a wider audience and it'd be really useful if the discussion moved on a bit from mere outrage to thinking of ways to deal with this in a practical sense.

"Bear in mind that BBCi comes under the same guidelines that govern TV and radio, so suggestions such as 'We should be allowed to say what we like' are not really practical, just idealistic. But does the Community want certain material removed? If not, what does the Community propose we do about subject matter that might not be appropriate for all?

SEF: "Are you now claiming that there are new guidelines? If so, what has changed, can we see them and under what clause(s) did the articles fail? Researchers need to know this in order to fix those articles and avoid doing again whatever was suddenly deemed to be wrong which wasn't wrong before."

Um. No. Jimster's post seemed clear to me. The Italics have been asked to consider how suitable some of the content is for a wider audience, and they have asked us to thinking of practical ways of dealing with the issue.

If there were new Guidelines I am absolutely certain the Italics would publish them, so we would all stop discussing hypotheses and deal with the concrete. In the absence of the concrete, we are being *consulted*. Looks like progress to me.

It is worth noting that we are being consulted - not on possible guidelines - but on "ways to deal with this in a practical sense". That sounds to me like an acknowledgement that the grid is - er - non-ideal, and a request for suggestions from us.

I welcome the fact that we are being consulted, and that information finally seems to be flowing both ways.

The key question is, I think, "what does the Community propose we do about subject matter that might not be appropriate for al?"

B

...and to repeat mylast question, who are 'all'. All adults, all adult readers of the Daily Mail, conservative adults, all adults and children from a certain age, or all people, regardless of age including the unsupervised kids that might wander this way?

As far as most people here can see, the removed video entry *was* suitable for all. 'All' has been redefined.

The first and last sentances from :- BBCi Terms and conditions -http://www.bbc.co.uk/terms/
" Access to and use of this site ('BBCi') is provided by the BBC subject to the following terms:
< large snip >
The BBC reserves the right to delete any posting, at any time, for any reason."

The whole question of moderation was discussed at take over time. In the end h2g2 won self moderation rights.
The entries in question cleared the h2g2 self moderation system. Its for the 'italics' to press the BBC for an explanation as to why the self moderation system was over ruled and to inform researchers of their findings.
The 'yikes' button is there for all to use and let's face it the BBC has as much right to 'yikes' a post as anyone else as is clearly stated at the end of their terms. Just hope that common sense prevails in the end. It is doubtful if you will ever get a consencus of opinion with regard to what is acceptable and what is not. My wife and I never agree it just happens that I have the casting vote.

Thanks Ben, that is indeed what I meant.

I really need to get back to doing editing and looking after Scouts picks, but if I can just add this: we are going to have to review our application of the Producers' Guidelines to some extent - that much is a given. What we are doing here is asking those of you who are interested to be a part in how it is implemented. There is, however, nothing in those guidelines that says we have to ask our 'audience' what they think; we do that out of choice.

Back to editing.

I don't there is anything on the site which needs to be removed at present. I understand protection from articles such as '50 ways to kill your best friend', cause that is giving out potentially dangerous information in a distressing format.

There doesn't seem to be much which the community would want removed, the present guidelines seem to cover far more than enough. For instance I believe the community doesn't see the point in there being no place any any material about sex. Can't have a guide on life without including sex, and sex can go wrong. It is educational to cater for that.

So if the community doesn't see a problem, maybe you could educate us on why we need to do this exercise?

Jimster: "we are going to have to review our application of the Producers' Guidelines to some extent - that much is a given"

By saying that you are also saying that you know for certain there was something wrong with the way you were applying them before. That implies that EdPol have told you something about what was wrong unless there's yet another group within the BBC telling you that you were doing something wrong. If EdPol are talking and giving out explanations now then I think FB would like to get his one soon.

The community clearly doesn't think anything was wrong with the current guidelines or those articles. Many of them have said so. If there had been legitimate complaints from the community/public the articles would have been yikesed in the normal way. The Barbados(?) one is an example of that. Perhaps that editorial misjudgement was the thing which set off this witch-hunt of otherwise relatively inoffensive articles. We researchers don't know. Do you italics? Knowing why could make a difference to the sort of thing people might suggest.

- The articles are already classified by subject matter. So no-one should have been surprised by the content of FB's one.

- The dna software already has the ability to separate off sites. However h2g2 was supposed to be the most inclusive one. You would be stuck with either banning children to some other site and leaving the adult content, or banning adults and their supposedly unacceptable articles to some other site or chucking that sector of "life" altogether. It is not as if h2g2 has ever been a porn site anyway. Checking up on people's age to apply different access rights to individuals would seem infeasible.

- You can't realistically have a 6pm/9pm watershed on the visibility of articles when the whole world can see the site at different times.

- The disclaimer at the bottom of every page and the yikes button should cover most editorial mistakes. In what way are they deemed not to have done so this time?

- For everything else it is up to the parents to supervise their children. The BBC broadcasts stuff on TV which is probably just as "bad" (bearing in mind we still don't know which aspects of the articles were "bad"). Children these days have TVs in their bedrooms just as much as computers.

What's St Francis's prayer? The courage to change the things I can, the serenity to change the things I can't and the wisdom to know the difference?

It seems wise to accept asserenely as possible that Ed Pol are here to stay, and worthwhile to work courageously on discussing how to implement the brave new regime.

I have no problem with that. Life is always easier if you take reality as your baseline.

What I *am* unclear about is what Ed Pol are trying to achieve - Back to Jimster, earlier: "we're now being asked to consider how appropriate some of our content is for a wider audience and it'd be really useful if the discussion moved ... to thinking of ways to deal with this in a practical sense. ... Does the Community want certain material removed? If not, what does the Community propose we do about subject matter that might not be appropriate for all?"

The key pieces here seem to be

"wider audience"
"does the Community want certain material removed?" and
"what does the Community propose we do about subject matter that might not be appropriate for all?"

It is quite clear that there are no Edited Entries that the community wants removed. The only entries which might qualify never made it to edited status because, in part, of the furore they created. (A quick round of Seven Card W**kstain, anyone? Or some nice Unnatural Sexual Practices?) So I think you can take it as read, Jimster, that we like the material in the Guide just fine the way it is.

Kelli is absolutely right, we need a definition for 'all' to go along side a definition for 'wider audience'.

In the absence of those definitions we are left with processes...

At its simplest level FB's suggestion that the Ts and Cs of the site be changed to say that Edited Content may still be removed at any time is actually a good solution. It is simple, it is truthful, it is direct, and it reflects the reality of the situation.

Otherwise we are left with the Grid, or with a new kind of volunteer alongside the Scouts and the Subs - the 'Thought Police'. Or with whatever other process the delightful and devious minds on this site can come up with.

I wish I had some neat solutions. I just come back to questions though.

B

Jimster: "we are going to have to review our application of the Producers' Guidelines to some extent - that much is a given"

SEF: By saying that you are also saying that you know for certain there was something wrong with the way you were applying them before.

Ben: Not at all, it merely implies that a previously undocumented or non-existant process is about to be reviewed, defined and implemented.



SEF: The community clearly doesn't think anything was wrong with the current guidelines or those articles. Many of them have said so.

Ben:

SEF: Knowing why [the pulled entries were pulled] could make a difference to the sort of thing people might suggest.

Ben: All the difference in the world. *sigh*


SEF: - The dna software already has the ability to separate off sites. However h2g2 was supposed to be the most inclusive one. You would be stuck with either banning children to some other site and leaving the adult content, or banning adults and their supposedly unacceptable articles to some other site or chucking that sector of "life" altogether. It is not as if h2g2 has ever been a porn site anyway. Checking up on people's age to apply different access rights to individuals would seem infeasible.

Ben: I think it was 2001 when there was a discussion about creating an Adults area of h2g2 for just that sort of entry. The arguments against were compelling, but I was in favour of it, and one of my bad habits is to crawl out behind the curtains and mutter "I told you so". Sometimes my foresight makes me shiver.

SEF: - For everything else it is up to the parents to supervise their children.

Ben: Hmmm. In theory 'yes', in practice - the BBC is still a big target.

B

Jimster: " we are going to have to review our application of the Producers' Guidelines to some extent - that much is a given. What we are doing here is asking those of you who are interested to be a part in how it is implemented. "

As I already stated in the Grid-threads: the grid will not help this along as Youse will still have to decide into what part of the grid a certain entry falls. If you have to change your understanding of the HR, this means you have to change the definition of "otherwise objectionable etc". Until now the Eds and the reasearchers were more or less in agreement of what was acceptable. At least I can't remember too many entries that caused as much upheaval as the aforementioned 7 Card W*ankst*in. So, if we as h2g2 agree about the HR etc. there is not much approval for a change of these rules (as the reaction to the Grid showes, IMO).

As the decision of what should become part of the (edited) guide lies ultemately with you, you will need to formulaate a new understanding of the HR in the towers. I don't think that the community will be able to help you here.
If the interpretation of the HR becomes more restrictive, researchers will after some time develop a feeling for what is acceptable and what not. I don't feel the need to change the HR. E.g. FB's entry could have been declared "otherwise objectionable" and be removed. If EdPol makes you apply a more restrictive understanding of the HR you will have to formulate it.
I can't see that the community will give you any clues as to how far they want the scope of h2g2-able material to be reduced. It is very good that youse want to have our input on that subject, but that input won't be much. In the end it will always come down to what *you* Eds think.
If we'd want something removed from the site we'd yikes it. As we don't, we show that we like the content as it is.
We as researchers are not bound by EDPol guidelines; you are. That's why you will havwe to come up with a new understanding of them.


Tube
not envying the Eds for the task of re-formulating the understanding of the guidelines.

*agrees with Tube as usual*

I have an idea

The guide would not be complete without content contain all walks of life the universe and everything.

If the Beeb are that worried about people being offended about the topic of certain conversations then why not mark these pages in a way that they could be filtered, so you have some with no mark, some marked as medical, some as sexual, maybe just explicit would do.

On your first visit to such a page, you would then be given a warning page to say about the content and an option to continue or not. If no, you drop back to a previous page. If yes you continue and view the page you want. Once you have said yes to mature content then you shouldn't need to be asked again. Could be done with cookies and a bit of coding (or any other light snack).

This would mean that everybody is happy. Users would only get the warning page if they were about to view a mature thread so it wouldn't intrude on the normal H2G2 day to day experience and the Beeb are covered legally.

Just an idea.

Actually, that may not be a million miles off the beam, Moonglum (welcome back btw - good to see you ).

Could the categories as outlined in the now infamous grid be used to apply some form of warning to stuff in the Edited Guide? It's noyt unusual for programmes on the BBC to come with warnings for explicit content, violence, language etc.

Can we not apply the same rules to content in the edited guide? I'm not sure how practical it would be to put an entire new page into the system but surely a header would be sufficient? You don't, after all, have to get seperate access to a film from the BBC that comes with such a warning, just exercise your discretion according to the warning given.

There's no reason why such a warning shouldn't be colour coded and linked to the Grid for further information, is there?

Just a random thought lobbed into the void...

We have a seconder then for Moonglum's proposal. It hath been seconded by Blues Shark that EdPol (whatever that is ) should not delete items but use the proposed "Grid" system (whatever that is ) to render them colour coded or hidden behind a candy coated page of dire warnings and accessable only by a direct action that confirms your understanding that you do so at your own peril.

Discussion.


~jwf~

Another approach is to issue a warning as Jimster did at the top of A753527. Or possiblu changing the skins. If the Edited Entries explicitly said something like this at the top of the page: "This entry has been written by a member of the h2g2 community and is published as part of the BBC's commitment to Public Service and Public Access Broadcasting", that might help.

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, at the outset of the BBC regime, I suggested that people were asked their date of birth when they signed up, and that info was stored as part of their "user profile". In the same way that users who are logged in are served different versions of pages from users who aren't, users in different age brackets would see different "versions" of the Guide. All articles would be rated for "content" under the same criteria used for home videos, and postings to threads would have a "content rating" attached (invisible to the users) depending on whether they contain any "naughty words" or phtases.

Under-13s:
Links to "explicit" Edited Entries would be inactive. Attempts to access them directly would fail. Ditto links to any "unrated" pages, such as personal spaces where the user hasn't supplied a rating. Postings with naughty words would be "hidden".

13-17:
All "explicit" content is accessable, but a "swear filter" stars out naughty words on-the-fly. (This was originally suggested as an alternative to Moderation) Pages rated "hazardous to health" and "inadvisable" are inaccessable.

18+:
All content is viewable, uncensored.

Not logged in:
Defaults to under-13 settings. Thus all Google cache pages would be censored.

Thus, responsibility transfers to the parents to ensure their children have an "honest" log-in... It's an old idea whose time has come again, imho - comments?

*waves to Perry* Ah - a mole in our midst!

I agree completely with Peet's suggestion, but I have a horrible feeling whatever we do get, it won't be code...

B