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

Yes, it seems very unlikely that the deleted content will reappear (especially as they are denying FB the chance to fix his one but also because it is probably a face-saving thing).

I too believe that the most important thing is the lack of transparency, ie the _way_ in which the articles were deleted and the complete lack of courtesy shown to FB - which runs counter to the BBC's own guidelines. NB The software could still do with an alternative standard automatic message for EG articles which get deleted. So that it doesn't say the author (ie the original author) deleted it but that the BBC did.

We would like to thank the Community for their feedback on the prototype grid system as outlined at A965252, which was proposed as a system for helping Researchers to ascertain where content could potentially come into conflict with the Producer's Guidelines for BBCi.

As the balance of the views of the Community seem to be against this system, we have decided not to develop it any further. The Editorial team will be looking at a variety of other ways for making sure that content on h2g2 continues within the policies and guidelines of the BBC. If and when we need to remove content from h2g2 in the future we will endeavour to provide feedback about the circumstances. We’d appreciate it if the Community would note that because of the size of h2g2 we may not be able to comment at length on every instance. But we will try our best.

Thanks for the info! And thanks for involving the community, even if we don't agree with your ideas.


"The Editorial team will be looking at a variety of other ways for making sure that content on h2g2 continues within the policies and guidelines of the BBC."

IMO, you will just need to alter your interpretation of the HR to EdPol standards (provided that they have told you by now what these are). I don't think there is a need to alter the HR per se or to introduce some new system.


" If and when we need to remove content from h2g2 in the future we will endeavour to provide feedback about the circumstances."

Do I understand it correctly that the author will not be given the chance to re-write (cf my suggestion at #100)?


Tube

It is good to see that th italics are taking on board our views.

The thing is they have got rid of the grid, but you know what that means to me hikers? That means I think that WE now have to come up with some ideas. Personally I like the idea of a DOB at registration thing but I cannot see it ever happening.

So lets see what we can come up with.

p.s. I agree with Peet, the transparancy DOES need to be addressed.

I think we don't need the DOB registration as the HR state that:

"If you're Under Age 16
Please get your parents' or guardians' permission before taking part in h2g2 or any other BBC Discussion Message Board."

So the BBC should be covered on thaat issue.
As I understand it the problematic area lies with kids who surf h2g2 (only read it) and are not registered. That cannot be solved by any further checks at registration.

As I suggested earlier, if the DOB was implemented it would mean that unregistered hikers and search spiders would be assumed to be under-13s. It would also allow the DNA engine to be expanded to include sites only targeted at a specific age range, such as a CBEEBIES chat thread area where "adults" couldn't gain access. By having rich content aimed at specific age groups, it would provide an incentive for the researcher to provide their real DOB, else they wouldn't be able to access the content that was of most interest to them.

Oh ... ok.

Tube
non-

The problem of people lying still remains though. Although in theory it seems like a very good idea, I don't believe that in practice the BBC want to check up on everyone. So they still have to accept that whatever they do they can't stop people seeing things which might upset them. I was going to say that it does make it pretty obvious that those people are "asking for it" except that of course some adults might have been offended by FB's article and presumably the DOB thing would make no difference to the acceptability KerrAvon's article.

Slightly more subtle than a DOB would be signing up for specific content, eg no-one gets the imaginary X-rated content without ticking a checkbox or whatever (on registration or on trying to view it). But a disclaimer at the top of such articles really ought to be enough.

Why not both?

The DOB idea was for the benefit of the BBC's legal department, as a way to move the weight of responsibility from them to the individual user.

If the DOB was in place, over-18s could have an extra checkbox in their preferences saying "Display potentially offensive content?", defaulting to off.

It just occured to me that the whole thing only touches a minimal part of hootoo content, namely the edited entries. Thus all conversations at Ask h2g2 and unedited entries would be visible to all, not?

We then have to define "potentially offensive" - the whole point about the content on this site is that it is adult (as in responsible) not adult (as in pornographic).

Anything can offend someone. My flippant remark, as I said the last time we were discussing this, is somebody else's blasphemy.

Actually, I wonder why we are so worried about offending people. What is so sacred about someone's "right" to not be offended anyway?

Ok, ok, ok, slippery slope, discrimination, etc, etc, etc. I do know the counter-arguments.

I know the answer to the question why are we so worried about it, too. We are worried about being able to publish content, rather than worried about offending people per se.

The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that the core of this issue is about publishing, not about writing.

B

Not really. I would have expected that unedited entries would be assumed to be unsuitable for under-16s. An unedited entry that was "Yikes'd" could, at the editorial team's discretion, simply be flagged as "potentially offensive" rather than have any other moderation action taken against it.

Actually, it would depend on the owner of the unedited entry - a page written by an eight-year old would be visible to all, by a fifteen-year old would be visible to over-13s, and by an adult only by adults. (The age at time of last editing would be stored with the page...) The editorial process would include determining which entries written by adults were suitable for a younger age range.

Just think of the excitement of someone who, on reaching their eighteenth birthday, found that the Guide had suddenly become ten times larger!

And what about conversation threads? Wouldn't they have to be flagged as 16+ to make sure?

It's all very well with the big grins Peet ( me too) but the trouble with the sort of things we suggest is that poor Jim Lynn would be the one implementing them (probably) whereas I suspect the BBC higher-ups imagine (or would like to believe) there is some grand edict or guidelines they can issue which will make all current and future problems go away. Now to some extent there is - it's called the off button. But I think their contract/guarantee thingy with the government to have a presence in all media (which now includes the internet) will prevent them from pressing the global off button. We just have to convince them there are more subtle buttons which can be invented.

(Sssh, I'm trying to come up with enough reasons to make a cogent business case for upgrading the DNA engine... If it works, and the Beeb throw a little money at the problem, they might shift a few of the inferior BBS systems onto DNA at the same time... )

To be honest, I would imagine that the conversation threads are a far bigger potential problem in terms of tastelss and offensive content than the edited guide ids ever likely to be...

The Edited Guide is, by definition, edited. Whicvh is to say it has gone through a process of peer moderation, sub-editing and Italic editing. Not to much offensive or tasteless tat is going to get through all three - for example, the klegendary 7 card w**k-stain ran into a storm of protest at the first stage, and sank with out trace. (I'm not picking on Lucinda, for once, btw. It is just a very obvious example of what I mean.)

The threads in this place range from the completely innoffensive - chats with other researchers, chats about tv, the weather etc, to the potentially offensive - discussions about God (always good for causing offence, that ) and other things. On top of that there is still the fact that this site has more hormones in it than a randy 15 year old. That occasionally gets out of control and there are threads around here which are on very thin ice. I am amazed that one I was in not so long ago is still around, for example.

Either some poor devil has to catergorise all of these, or all of them have to be declared as being restricted content under this system. How unfair is that for kids who just want to talk about, oh say Anime in the Anime and Manga Shack? And how does it fit in with BBC Policy on access to it's services?

Part of the problem (he said, having thought some more), is that you want technology to remove human error from the system. In order to do that, however, the technology has to take the least inclusive option available - ie if your not logged in, if you haven't given a DOB, then *bang* you lose access to anything marked not suitable for a thirteen year old.

I for one wouldn't fancy being the man on the end of the letter from an MP who got that message on his PC, demanding to know just why it was that his licence fee,and that of his constituents, was paying for things that the public can't access.

The present process of human discretion *may* not be perfect, but as E.M. Forster once said of democracy - Two Cheers for it. It's the best solution to a difficult poroblem. It allows for dialogue between the community and the staff, and allows for a degree of discretion. Some times that discretuion will be exercised against you, certainly. But experience has shown that most of the time it won't be.

What I'm suggesting still leaves the editorial staff with a degree of discretion - an article or thread could be flagged "suitable for all", or for under-16s, or under-18s, or 18+s, or only suitable for 18+s who had actively read a disclaimer and checked a box in their personal profile that they wouldn't hold the BBC in any way responsible for materials they thought offensive.

Contributors of "stronger" material would find a minority of the site's audience restricted from seeing it, which is a far better situation than having it removed or being asked to edit out all the "naughty bits". The latter option would, of course, still be available to contributors who wanted to reach a wider audience.

And the editors could still remove truly objectionable stuff, such as incentives to racial hatred or instructions on "how to commit the perfect rape". What the DOB-monitoring system really achieves is to give them many more "intermediate levels" of action without unduly restricting the content we can contribute.

"paying for things that the public can't access"

I'm already paying via my license fee for a load of rubbish I can't access and don't even want - all the digital sport, news etc (along with all the normal broadcast stuff which I don't want).

People without internet access can't view the site at all. Of those with internet access, there can't be many without email. If you've got both of those then you can register - whether or not you have a license! BBCi is hardly an exclusive club in that respect. The only real barrier is whether or not people can find a computer and can press the right buttons to get the rest. Up till now the email has been largely voluntary too, though that really ought to be compulsory to give the BBC some minimal capability for checking on people if the police/courts get involved (ie devolves responsibility away from the BBC again if people have chosen to lie).