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

Whether or not you *want* or can *afford* the extra BBC channels on satellite etc isn't the point. It's not material being shown there which is deemed to fall within the BBC's remit. They evidently feel that some portions of the Guide don't. Simple as that. They have Guidelines that just about enbale them to remove anything they like.

According to their own Communications Policy Guidelines, they ought to be transparent as to why, but that is essentially a different matter.

As far as content goes, we have the Guidelines. We have chosen to reject the first attmept by the Italics to give us additional help with the Guidelines as they are *now* being interpreted, so we'll have to wait and see what they come up with next. You may like it even less. Who knows.

But lets be clear onm one thing, the BBC are not going to introduce restrictive access according to age for theis site. It runs contrary to every policy they have a s a public servive broadcaster.

In fact, those of us that are somewhat long in the tooth, both Italics and Community, will remember the long and tedious attempt by a member of the community to have one particular part of the site marked as an 'adults only' area. As an idea it was rejected out of hand, utterly, by the Italic team - the good Moxon, if I recall. I've seen nothing to indicate that that policy is about to change.

"restrictive access according to age" ... "contrary to every policy they have a s a public servive broadcaster"

You've never heard of the watershed then - or have strategically forgotten it for the purposes of your flawed argument.

And as I found myself saying repeatedly the watwershed (a tenuous concept at best) doesn't apply to the net because the audience has 24/7 access.

The BBC has a remit a public service broadcaster to make as much of it's content available as it possibly can given the constraints it works under *and* it's remit to provide programming for all it's viewers. The watershed allows them to programme more adult - eg sexual and violent programming after a certain time, thus satisfying those of us who find tat such as Question of Sport as dull as The TellyTubbies.

not at all sure why he's bothering given the sarcastic and unpleasant nature of the responses he's getting.

ditto

Actually I do know my reason: it's because there is the possibility that some readers may actually comprehend even if they haven't got there already on their own.

But what is your point? That somewhere in all this a smoking gun and we must find the one who held it last?

Frankly, I don't care whether the entries were killed by Ed Pol in the library with the lead pipe, or by the h2g2 editors in the Lounge with the knife, or by both acting together using the pistol in the kitchen.

It's history. Pointing fingers and blaming people isn't going to help the situation. The reality is this;

1) The lidless eye of Ediorial Policy has fallen upon our happy little Shire. (sorry Ben...)

2) As a result (and the mechanics are frankly not important), three Edited Guide Entries have bitten the dust under a new Interpretations of the Guidleines. Two of them were always, in my opinion on thin ice in any event. One of them is a *little* more puzzling.

3) The Editors have removed the erroneous message saying that the entries had been removced at the authors request and apologized for putting it there in the first place.

4) th Editors offered us, the coomunity the opportunity to collaborate with them on the Grid, which was to enable us to understand the new interpretations of the guidelines. We rejected that out of hand. Possinblt due to a communication error but again, that is frankly unimportant. The important fact is that the Grid has been declared null and void.

5) The Editors have now started a process whereby guidance can be given to the community about the new way in which the existing Editorial Guidelines for BC Content are being intepreted.

What else do you expect from them. They've expolained why the entries were removed - they contravened the new interpretations of the Guidelines.

They've apologized for the mistake of putting a message up that the authors requested that the items be removed.

They are going to give us Guidance and assistance with the new interpretations of the Guidelines.

If you expect to get anything more from them, then have fun banging your head against that brick wall. I'm off to do something mildly constructive...

Thanks for that masterly summary Blues.

To be honest, given that Ed Pol, the Italics and most of the Researchers are human beings, it is not a surprise that every now and again someone makes a bad call or something glitches.

It is quite clear that the communication blocks are un-glitching slowly but surely, so it makes sense to hang on in here and see what results.

The Sauron metaphor is a good one. The unblinking eye won't go away. We have to work out a new modus vivendi, and to be honest I think it is one of the strengths of h2g2 that the details of the new modus vivendi the are being debated.

B

FB still hasn't received an explanation of _what_ was wrong as should have happened if the yikesing had proceded in the approved manner. Bypassing the established procedures was what caused part of this.

So, following on from that, it would help if EdPol were made aware of how to use the yikesing procedure and co-operate with the community if they expect the community to co-operate with them.

FB would probably appreciate specific information as to what can be fixed to get the article back in the EG again. Failing that, the former explanation (should it ever be forthcoming) would have to cover why the article can never ever be made acceptable. Other EG articles get amended when necessary after all.

The software should be changed to have a different message automatically put in place of an EG article which is deleted. The current one was clearly not designed with the possibility of belated EG deletions in mind. Either a change to the text or being able to discriminate between the two types of deletion should do it. It ought to be automatic to avoid staff making mistakes. Perhaps I need to post this suggestion separately again on the Features page, since the staff seem to prefer that.

I'm sure I had another point but I've forgotten it in the time it took me to type that lot.

Warning: What follows is sarcasm.

Let me know when the house is on fire again,
I'm going to put the bucket back under the bed.


Warning: That was sarcasm.

Well I'm glad its all over. I know that changes have to be made and change is often a good thing, I just wish we could have gentler changes on h2g2. Instead of announcements made with fireworks and making everybody nervous, couldn't we have announcements put a lot more gently. This community means a lot to me, and I always over-react, if things were put to me a little more gently then I would react with more intelligence and less ranting.

>FB still hasn't received an explanation of _what_ was wrong<

With respect, yes he has. It's outside of the Guidlelines as they are *now* being applied. We are perhaps unfortunate in being the one broadcast media being used by the BBC where new Editorial Policies can be applied retroactively.

As for the idea that Ed Pol are remotely interested in being educated in the use of the 'proper' procedures and the Complaints Button, well -. Go tilt at that windmill, Don...

No BS, FB needs to know what specifically was wrong and what can be done to fix it - as applies to nearly every other article. I did explain this distinction in a subsidiary point but as usual you failed to read or comprehend it. You just reacted to what you thought you'd read or what you wanted me to have written - as do a number of other people round here who habitually misrepresent things or outright lie about them.

Cute post SEF.

"FB needs to know what specifically was wrong and what can be done to fix it" ...

... "people round here who habitually misrepresent things or outright lie about them"

Pot, kettle, kettle, pot.

SEF - you have no idea whatsoever what FB needs or does not need. Neither do I. Neither do any of us here.

Additionally - you have no idea whether or not FB want's "to fix" the entry. Neither do I. Neither do any of us here.

And finally - I am willing to bet folding money that you have no idea of the content of any off-site communication FB has had with the BBC. Since off-site communication is - er - off-site, there is no way of knowing who here and otherwhere has been copied on this, though.

I'll do you a deal - you stop misrepresenting things, and I'll stop wearing the stupid hat.

B

"Pot, kettle, kettle, pot."

Yes, specifically you and BS recently.

FB wrote a replacement article. That's a pretty fair statement of intent. Did you somehow miss that?

FB has been keeping us fairly reliably/regularly informed about his off-site communications. Are you calling him a liar or saying that you know for certain this offsite communication has just occurred or that he has changed his behaviour about reporting it?

I think you still have your stupid hat firmly on your head, Ben, as I haven't misrepresented anyone at all. Go and look at the evidence. It's all there in the threads. BS still hasn't apologised for the last time he lied about what I had and hadn't posted even though it was right there in the same thread for everyone to see, only about a page before his lie.

Anyone fancy a pint?

You've brought your own, Peet. Now you just have to figure out a way to pour it up the thread and into EV's open mouth.

I bow to your greater knowledge SEF.

I have known FB on and off this site for two years, and in RL for about 18 months. He knows rather more about me than most people on this site and for a variety of reasons I consider him to be a good friend.

One one thing I *do* know, is that I *don't* know what his objectives will be in any given situation, including this one.

Therefore I for one don't know what he needs.

As I said, I bow to your greater knowledge.

B

> "Two of them were always, in my opinion on thin ice in any event. One of them is a *little* more puzzling."

Purely out of tiness... which?