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

The h2g2 Editors account posted here: F77636?thread=299215&post=3829998#p3829994

Tube - what you suggest seems workable - though I would suggest asking the author to set their own deadline within - say - 60 days, and tell them that the entry will remain hidden in the meantime. Assuming that the entry is re-writable of course.

B

Not bad, Tube my man, not bad at all.

So from now onwards, the EG (what about unedited entries? Conversations?) cannot contain any material not suitable for consumption by pre-watershed tv viewers?

Oh dear. Is there any likelihood of any of the warning/code-based solutions being proposed here getting adopted so that we can get back to being grown-ups again?

The timeline thing is negotiable, I would think. people have different priorities at different times, after all. I would think the priority here is to ensure that authors are informed of what the problem is and given a chance to change the work to fit the Guidelines?

One last question - is there to be an amendment to the HouseRules to recognize this slight but crucial change in editorial policy?

I don't think that is what is being said at all, Kelli. I think that what is being said is that if you choose to write entries or conversations *wherever* they are in the Guide, you must be aware that they may fall foul of editorial guidelines.

A sort of Caveat for contributors, rather than for the reader...

Hmmm. So why didn't you say that five weeks ago?

Anyhow, I just popped onto the thread to post an addendum to my post #78, that I forgot to mention last night.

By building date-of-birth into DNA profiles, it wouldn't just serve to stop children seeing adult content, but also to stop adults accessing child-only areas. It would open the possibility of, say, a DNA site for CBEEBIES that only under-13s could post to, or a CBBC site that was only open to under-18s. If this child-friendly content was compelling enough, it would be an incentive for children to use their real age in profiles. Adults could read the articles, but not the messaging threads.

Anyone who had a "legacy" profile with no DOB information would be able to see content rated under-13 on "adult" sites only, until they had entered their DOB. Once a DOB is entered on a profile there would be no automatic way for a user to change it - in the rare event of a typo, where they had managed to enter it wrong, twice, they would have to e-mail BBCi to have it changed. This would "flag up" people trying to play the system by altering their DOB gratuitously.

CBEEBIES - "Adults could read the articles, but not the messaging threads"

Peet, you are an evil genius, and probably a wonderful uncle.

Ben

It's an interesting idea, but involves quite a lot of new code, and I tend to agree with Ben (?) here - I don't think new code is on the books for a while, at least...

"The guidelines advise against publishing anything on the web that we would not publish on TV/Radio. There is the added consideration of the website being available at all times, where TV/Radio programmes can be scheduled to target particular audiences."

The first paragraph here seems to warn against publishing anything not suitable for TV bearing in mind that we cannot only publish material post watershed. I don't know how else to interpret that.

The fact that FBs censored version of his entry was also removed suggests that it is not only the content of the entry that is important but the topic to which it relates.

I agree that this is a warning to researchers rather than viewers - it is warning us not to write on more adult themes.

Well, i don't agree, butwe wil find out in practice. FB's censored article was removed while solutions to problems were formulated, something he agreed to as well, once the nedd for it was explained.

*Maybe* we might get it back now...We shall have to wait and see.

BS, actually, the code to do this exists - it's how the site delivers a different page depending on whether you are logged in or not. All that would change is that instead of two different levels of "logged in" there would be four...

"On review, the h2g2 Editors agreed that the entries in question should be removed."

Interesting given that in the other thread individual italics were saying that there had not been a review (involving them) and that they did not know what exactly the problems with the articles were.

For whom are you speaking? eg h2g2 Editors = only "our" italics not any part of EdPol.

When did this review take place? (ie have you only just had one after the original events and statements or have you decided to come clean about a process which actually took place before).

Did you genuinely understand what you were agreeing to such that you could now explain it to FB (as per the proper moderation process which might allow him to modify the article accordingly)? Or did you just say yes to EdPol because it seemed expedient job-wise?

Well, Ok. But realistically it's not going to happen, I think. From The BBC's point of view, having a chunk of your web material classified as 'adult only' is just asking for the press to have a field day, don't you think?

Oh, snide, SEF, very snide. Interesting questions though.

Don't forget that each individual Italic has a separate remit, and that Natalie has been on holiday. The site has a history of mid-summer madnesses.

One of the things I really like about the Italics is their ability to learn from their mistakes. There was a major problem with lack of communication and contradictory advice on this subject, so I welcome the fact of this announcement, though it does have a "two steps back" feel to it.

It seems the water is clearing in the Towers at last.

Ben

Well they have a chunk of their daily programming flagged as adult, or supervised children only so why not?

It's not like I suggested a "local time zone" in your profile so you could implement the watershed...



Well...

Yeah, but they aren't Channel Four, or Channel Five. The BBC don't present their brand as including adult material, and that must be a conscious choice on their part.

The frustrating thing is that the adult content here is just about the most responsible, informative and least titilating content on the whole of the world wide w**k.

B

I don't know. I found the gay male pop-ups (literally... ) on a Russian computer site far less titilating, personally.

I'm *not* going to ask...

As has been pointed out, the Web doesn't have a watershed, Kelli. It's as simple as that. It can't function like TV or radio does because all the content is availble 24/7...