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

I think I have mentioned that fact 3 or four times now BS

What I keep saying (and you keep disagreeing with) is that the current position seems to be that as a result all material should be suitable for pre-watershed consumption.

You said that the BBC can't have some of its web material marked as not for children because the press would have a field day. All I was pointing out was that some of their programming is marked not for children so I don't see why we can't apply something along the same lines to ensure that vast swathes of Life the Universe and Everything aren't removed from the EG.

Are you suggesting we should self-censor so as not to upset readers of the Daily Mail

No, I'm suggesting that it will be up to the author of any individual piece to assess whether or not, under the new guidleines (which we haven't even seen yet...) it will be worth their time and effort to produce an article that MAY fall foul of editorial policy.

Thats not self-censoring, it's common sense. If I want to write a swequel to, say, Night of the Living dead I'm unlikely to offer to the BBC. It's not the sort of programming they are associated with. If I want to write an episode of a solidly adult dramam like Between the Lines of something similar, then I might be able to sell it to the BBC.

Despite the removel of three items from the Guide, only two of which dealt with adult themes in any event, there are still plenty of others dealing woth the fun and pleasures of adult (and I use the term in it's loosest possible sense - adult does mean considerably more than sex, frankly) pursuits in the Guide, as FB has continuosly pointed out.

*feels paradigms shift in her head like tectonic plates*

SEF - you are right I can be immensely stupid at times.

Blues - what you are saying is that the BBC is taking the place that web channels play within its role as a publisher more seriously, right? And just as both Mills and Boon and Playboy publish adult material, they are very different channels for very different kinds of material. Is that right?

So we have to start thinking about our material in the context of the BBC as a publishing house? And publishing houses don't necessarily have incredibly clearly defined guidelines, though you can tell by reading a manuscript which publishing houses to send it to. Am I still following you, Blues?

Bli- as I have said already today -mey

B

Did I say I was talking about just sex?

I know we haven't seen the new guidelines yet, that is a big part of the problem. That is why we are asking all these questions. All we can do at the moment in make assumptions based on the statements and actions to date.

Ben - Hammer, nail, head. that';s exactly what I was trying to say but you express it more clearly than me, as always.

Kelli - the sex thing was flippant, but it does underline my point. Until we have seen the Guidelines, I'd suggest that there is little point in asking the questions, though - we have rejected out of hand a set of Guidleines (the Grid) which the Italics were prepared to work with us on.

But even under the new Guidelines, only 3 out of 5, 500 Edited Guidleines have been pulled. I can't be bothered to do the maths (idle git), but thats a miniscule percentage - less tha n 0.3%, anyways. I think our response to what has actually been a pretty small re-alignment of editorial policy may have been just a little ott, myself.

But it's not the realignment of policy that's generated the greatest response, but rather the lack of transparency with which it was implemented.

Well, I agrre with that in part. I think some people have been here just spoiling for a fight. Naming no names, of course.

And we seem to have moved away from that to a fairly generalised 'Oh what will be next' type of thing. As far as I can tell nothing will be next for the time being. The Italics have done the task they were asked to by Editorial Policy. It seems unlikley that they will be doing it again in the forseeable future because having done it, all that needs doing is a new set of Guidelines that will reflect those changes, which means new stuff won't be going in that is in breach of those new Guidelines.

At the bottom of every BBCi page is a link to 'Terms of Use' - http://www.bbc.co.uk/terms/ . The link can also be found at th bottom of the newer DNA sites.
These terms are open to interpretation by whoever reads them. Presumably they must form the basis for any DNA community House Rules.
Is it these BBCi Terms that are going to change or the house rules of h2g2 ?

Ancient Brit

I assume that they will change the official interpretation of the rules without changing the wording. I.e. clauses like "or otherwise offensive material may be removed" will be interpreted in a wider way to cover more topics/styles.

Re Peet's resurrected idea of having DOB in the dna profile:

Even if the BBC were prepared to code it (including the non-swapping bit) it still wouldn't work without hiring a huge team of detectives to check. People could have more than one login identity and email. A child could have one legit one from school/home and one from a site like Yahoo where they get to see adult content. Similarly a paedophile could have a legit work one and a fake child one. They would use them both (like people round here are already known to do) and not have to swap the DOB. Then there is the problem of what content is visible to people/crawlers who are not logged in. I guess you'd make that exclude both adult and child-specific stuff as with anyone who hadn't entered a DOB.

It wouldn't matter if child-specific articles were indexed; it would be better if child-specific *conversations* weren't. Even if they were, it would be better if adult UIDs couldn't post to them.

The idea is to move all responsibility away from the BBC to the parents of the individual children, thus freeing "Auntie" of the urge to censor the sort of content that should be available to any (ir)responsible adult. Actual systems to prevent children from seeing "unsuitable" content would go a lot further to cover their butts (Am I allowed to say that here? ) that long, boring disclaimers that nobody reads should a court case ever erupt over this.

I'm aware that there's nothing to stop someone setting up two different IDs from the same machine; after all, one would hope that everybody in the family had their own ID. But, should a legal situation arise, the BBC could shift the blame onto the person who lied in their account application - something that should bring a warm glow to their legal department. (Am I allowed to say that? )

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

Presumably you must have had some kind of REASONS behind that agreement. You should tell us those reasons. As we asked. Several weeks ago. Repeatedly.

Good ol' wheel of blame. Round and round and round it goes. Where it stops, nobody knows.
-MyRedDice

Bit late to the thread, so this is a bit behind from reading though the whole thing just now.

My reading of "ALL" (from Jims entry earlier on about suitability for all) is lowest common denominator for not complaining about content. Namely people who take the Daily Mail editoral as the gospel truth. The worry is allways going to be for the BEEB a storm about content.

P.S. it is always so difficult to keep up with what is going on and where here at h2g2!

Which brings us back to the interesting topic of the web as a channel for a public service broadcaster. And to the other interesting topic of the increased usage of and access to h2g2.

In many respects a higher profile makes life more risky rather than less risky. As a colleague once said in a particularly difficult work situation: "I am trying to keep my head above water and below the parapet".

B

>> ..had some kind of REASONS behind that agreement. You should tell us those reasons. As we asked. >>

Lucy, lemme 'splain it for ya.
As Ancient Brit said earlier:

>>

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."

<<

Hmm.. any posting, at any time, for any reason.
Sounds to me like they got a pretty solid case.
Can't say they didn't warn ya.
Be content that somewhere, sometime, someone choked on something you wrote and were moved to exert their authourity against you.

peace
~jwf~

>> P.S. it is always so difficult to keep up with what is going on and where here at h2g2! <<

Yes. And no. And know.
There is always a tempest brewing a teapot somewhere. The community is particularly sensitive to issues they percieve as 'censorship'. In my experience, the measure of freedom of speech is in how much hot air gets blown whenever there is a percieved threat to that freedom.

In the past there were serious discussions of these issues and generally things have improved to the point where most reasonable and intelligent researchers feel free to express themselves fully. A little restraint, a little self control, a little bit of respect for others, whatever it takes, to play the game in the full realisation that the site IS CONTROLLED by a public broadcasting corporation and its directors will ultimately decide our fate.

Our 'job' is to continue making the site a happy place they can be proud of. And yes of course it also our job to complain whenever we feel our freedoms are being violated.


~jwf~

I'm neither reasonable nor intelligent!

You got it in post 136 ~jwf~
Ultimately someone has to be in charge and make decisions. Here the ultimate arbiter would be the BBC.
Problems arise however when someone way down the line assumes that resposibility as would seem to be the case on this occasion. It then becomes essential that that someone gives a full account of themselves and their actions. If they don't this event will continue to fester.

Well, I'm still waiting for EP to come up with a response to my email. Irrespective of what info they choose to trickle down the food chain (Metaphors? Mix? Moi?) I have asked them a direct question, and according to the BBC's guidelines (Isn't that a lovely word for them to use - if they feel like doing it they must follow the guidelines, if they don't they don't have to because it's just a "guideline", not a rule...) on accountability the department concerned is obliged to give a straight answer, directly to me.

The lack of transparency is a seperate and important issue, which I will continue to pursue even if all the deleted content were to miraculously reappear.