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

"We will remove any Postings or Guide Entries that quote the BBC, regardless of the accuracy of those quotes. The reason is that the vast majority of quotes will not be 100% accurate, and misquoting the BBC may make the BBC a target. If you want to quote something you saw or heard, then do not attribute it to a specific source."

(Hope you won't mind me quoting that )

Hey there - I was hoping you you would humour me and answer a couple of queries I have about the above. I would have thought that the one source that the BBC would have trusted, would be the BBC. I find it quite surprising that you would object...

Does this restriction apply only to the current situation? I am writing an article at the moment (planning to put it in the pos, if they let me) on charity, and I quote the BBC news site, and the Children In Need site. Is that acceptable?

Please understand that these are queries, not criticism - I understand that the BBC is a public service, and has certain responsibilities.

"I would have thought that the one source that the BBC would have trusted, would be the BBC."

Indeed, we do trust the BBC! However, what we do *not* trust is the ability of every single user of the BBC website to be able quote the BBC 100% accurately. The concern that we have is someone misquoting the BBC, and the BBC (or individuals at the BBC) then becoming a potential target for those who don't like that misquote.

If you are writing an entry and want to quote a BBC website, then that's fine (as long as the quote isn't so substantial that it might be a copyright issue). Including a link to where the quote can be seen on the BBC site is a good way of ensuring that the Moderators won't question its accuracy. Also, bear in mind that this guideline is only in relation to the Afghan Crisis; other quotes aren't affected, BBC or otherwise.

Hope this helps explain things; happy to clarify anything that's still muddy.

BBC: 'Hey listen up, you guys aren't allowed to quote me anymore.'
Joe Public: 'Huh, why the hell is that?'
BBC: 'Well, I wouldn't want you to misquote me, people to get the wrong idea.'
Joe Public: 'so we can't quote you "because you don't trust everyone to quote 100% accurately"? '
BBC: 'Are you trying to quote me?'
Joe Public: 'No, of course not, that would be contrary to the rules which you stated before, which I can't quote here because it is contrary to the aforesaid rules.'
BBC: 'Yes you did, I distinctly remember.'
Joe Public: 'I did not!'
BBC: 'Yes you did, you said "so we can't quote you because 'you don't trust everyone to quote 100% accurately'"'.
Joe Public: 'Now you're quoting me!'
BBC: 'No I wasn't, I was quoting you quoting me. But I'm allowed to quote you anyway...'
Joe Public: 'Ah yes, but you were quoting me quoting the BBC, and that is contrary to the rule which you stated before, which I can't quote here because-'
BBC: 'Ah, do you admit it then?'
Joe Public: 'Well if I did it then so did you.'
BBC: 'Damn...'

(And with that, Joe Public and the BBC dissappear in a puff of logic through their own rectums.)

"Indeed, we do trust the BBC! However, what we do *not* trust is the ability of every single user of the BBC website to be able quote the BBC 100% accurately."

I would like to direct your attention to two lines at the bottom of this and every page of h2g2: "The majority of content on h2g2 is generated by h2g2's Researchers, who are members of the public. The views expressed are theirs and unless specifically stated are not those of the BBC."

If this line is still not true, can I please get my official badge that says I am a member of the BBC, or that my views represent the those of the BBC? If we members of the public are being held accountable for representing the BBC, when no one else could read the disclaimers and sensibly follow that reasoning, then we should at least get some of the perks that go along with that. Maybe a totebag? I'd settle for an old h2g2 t-shirt.

Subcom., may I just point out to you that you're violating this sites rules?
This discussion is about the crisis and its consequences and you are quoting BBC employees in their official function as Editors. And you also quote the official BBC disclaimer in this context!
I would like to remind you that, to quote the new guideline, "[sorry, I'm not allowed to quote that new rule]" ...




Tube
who does not quote his name from the BBC page http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/u55226

So if I were to say that the fear of the anthrax attacks is more dangerous than anthrax itself, and back it up with this nice overview

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_1607000/1607485.stm

...then I will be moderated? Can I quote other news sources, eg Sky, CNN, Channel 4, ITN news?

I'm not entirely sure how quoting or indeed, misquoting would be 'dangerous' - perhaps in a libellous or indeed, slanderous manner, but 'endangering lives' - surely that is only if I gave their name and address out. However, it is common knowledge that the BBC is at White City/Shepherd's Bush, so maybe I'm being

Maybe I'm being a bit thick here, after all, insomnia does that to you...

Well, I'll take the fact that the post and URL is still there after 2 hours as a no to being mod'ed and a yes to quoting other news sources as a way to ensure balanced debate then

I'm quite happy with the new rules anyway

Stay ,
WD (who is now going for lunch, whilst sitting on a fence...)

Hi.

It's important to make one point: the BBC is concerned about misquotes because of the potential danger that this might put BBC employees in. If we can find ways to enable quoting that doesn't put anyone in danger, then that's great (see below).

First up, any quotes from any sources - accurate or not - that potentially put anyone in danger will be removed. So let's just consider quotes that don't put anyone's lives at risk.

If, while quoting, you can provide us with a BBC link where the quote has come from, then this will enable the Moderators to check that the quotes are accurate. The guidelines do not currently say this, so we'll alter them accordingly - our apologies for that oversight.

If you're quoting from outside the BBC, then as long as the quote doesn't endanger anyone's lives and the quote doesn't break any copyright laws, then we will probably pass it, as we can't be expected to check every single quote from every single source. (In contentious cases, though, we may ask for the source.)

You cannot quote BBC Television, as we can't check the accuracy from a link; in these cases the best solution is not to attribute the quotes.

Subcom: The whole point about misquotes is that we cannot risk putting people's lives at risk. A disclaimer is going to make absolutely no difference to whether there is a risk or not, unfortunately.

Tube: As for quoting things like the h2g2 House Rules, of course that is all right; they're not related to the details of the current war, just the way we do things on h2g2. No need to worry about that!

Witty Ditty: Well spotted. We're off to clarify the rules now; we should have said BBC links were OK in the first place, but we didn't.

Well done for being so responsive and changing the rules...

I'm not against the rule per se (though I do think it a little odd, hence my little joke about it), but it needs a bit of thinking through.

I'm interested to know if this is a BBC-wide policy or something that h2g2 has put forward (there aren't any other communities like this on the BBC website, so I can see why that might be).

Obviously, the BBC has the right, and responsibility to protect its employees, and this seems only right. But the wording of the guideline does seem strange. Is it okay to quote from other news sources, for example, such as ITV News; "Trevor MacDonald said that the Taleban"? It seems strange that the rule only applies to the BBC.

I'm also suprised that the rules aren't already covered by those of slander and libel (or whatever it is). In which case it might be less confrontational to just remind people of these instead. I find it difficult to believe that these issues aren't already covered by legislation - though I'm not a lawyer. Journalists and news editors have rules governing what they can say, and I'm sure the BBC is well trained in these (I even heard a BBC producer say there are special BBC in-house training schemes to teach people).

Is the issue here clouded because h2g2 allows members of the public to post their views via the BBC? ie. the old 'information provider' verses 'information disseminator' debate, cf. Demon trial...

"I'm interested to know if this is a BBC-wide policy or something that h2g2 has put forward"

This is a BBC-wide policy that has been put in place by the BBC. It didn't originate from within h2g2, which is something it has in common with the election guidelines, no swearing, moderation, no URLs in Postings, no non-English languages, and plenty of other guidelines that we implement so that h2g2 sticks to the BBC's editorial guidelines like glue.

"Is it okay to quote from other news sources, for example, such as ITV News; "Trevor MacDonald said that the Taleban"? It seems strange that the rule only applies to the BBC."

The guidelines do state that *any* quotes that endanger *any* lives are not acceptable, so no, the above would not be acceptable if it endangered Trevor MacDonald.

Quoting from the BBC, though, and getting it wrong, is more likely to make the BBC a target, which is why we flag this specifically; h2g2 is run by the BBC, and if we do anything that might endanger the parent company or its employees, then we risk being shut down. It's never a good idea to do anything to annoy your parents!

"I'm also suprised that the rules aren't already covered by those of slander and libel (or whatever it is)."

It's not related to defamation, it's about not putting people in danger. If a journalist gets shot because of a misquote, who cares what the law had to say about it? We are trying to limit damage before it happens, and libel and defamation laws don't come into it.

"Is the issue here clouded because h2g2 allows members of the public to post their views via the BBC?"

Erm... is the issue here clouded?

BTW, here's a handy link for you that we've just been given; it's a link to the BBC's official guidelines that we've implemented. It might help answer your questions!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/editorial/prodgl/war_index.shtml

That's very informative, thanks guys!

The rules seem pretty logical now...

My last comment was refering to the idea of whether internet services which facilitate user discussion are acting as content providers, responsible for what they produce, like a news programme, or are information dissemeneters (sp?), not responsible for what is passed on through their infastructure, such as a telephone company (phone companies aren't sued if someone says something illegal over the phone). This is a debate which we discuss in 'medja studies' quite often, but it applies to newsgroups more than websites. Anyway, it's not really relevant here, so I'll just hop along and leave you guys to it!

Thanks again.

Frankie

This is also very informative for anyone interested: http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/bbc/pdf/bbc_online_guidelines.pdf

"Tube: As for quoting things like the h2g2 House Rules, of course that is all right; they're not related to the details of the current war, just the way we do things on h2g2. No need to worry about that!"

But there's still the possibility that some unstable person could be angered by something misquoted from the rules, or from other news sources. To reduce these absurd guidelines to their logical conclusion, h2g2 should allow no communication between researchers in these "sensitive" times, because anything could be misinterpreted by these hordes of unstable people for which BBC and h2g2 suddenly feel responsible.

They're not really illogical, and the rules aren't really going to affect the majority of us (just like moderation doesn't usually affect us, I've never even noticed it), so it's nothing big to worry about.

I reccommend you to follow that BBC link (the first one), it's very informative and clears a few things up...

Interesting link that.

Tube
wondering why the Italics didn't announce that link

"If you're quoting from outside the BBC, then as long as the quote doesn't endanger anyone's lives and the quote doesn't break any copyright laws, then we will probably pass it, as we can't be expected to check every single quote from every single source."

Almost lucid! Keep straining, you've almost reached a reasonable workload for peoples' expectations of online community hosts.

You can't be expected to check every single quote from every single source. You can't be expected to even check a substantial number of quotes. You can't be expected to prevent unstable people from taking offense at innocent things written on h2g2, prevent them from breaking laws and later claiming that h2g2 inspired them.

You can't be expected to be responsible for the actions of 90,000 possible h2g2 researchers. None of the worst case scenarios that BBC people imagine happening without these silly new rules could have resulted in BBC being reasonably blamed for what members of the public say or do.

You shouldn't be expected to do any of the intrusive things outlined in the Guidelines During the Afghanistan Crisis, because they will hinder discussion and will have no positive benefit for anyone.

"wondering why the Italics didn't announce that link"

We didn't know about it until last night, when we put it straight into the Guidelines...

Too much information, not enough time!

"Almost lucid! Keep straining, you've almost reached a reasonable workload for peoples' expectations of online community hosts." Subcom, it's much easier to have a debate if both sides try to refrain from lapsing into sarcasm. This debate has been pretty civil so far; can we try to keep it that way? It *would* help... (See your Posting 7 at http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F78651?thread=147722 - you made a good point there about 'staying cool'.)

I'm sorry. It's not the people, it's the policy. But we were so close to reaching an agreement with that one little line above. That's the first time I remember h2g2 Editors saying that a policy might be wrong because you "can't be expected" to meet that workload. So many other policies (old and new, not just the Afghanistan Crisis guidelines) are based on things that do not seem reasonable to expect from an online publisher.

If one researcher writes false quotes or posts a series of internet rumors, then we as readers ought to be responsible for checking the facts before believing any of it. I don't see how a reasonable person could claim that administrators of an online community should be responsible for all the potentially untrue things that community members might say.

The other problem is that it turns readers and members of the community into children. We don't need this responsibility and duty to be taken from us. It really takes something away from researchers.

We hear you, Subcom, we hear you. It's worth bearing in mind that the h2g2 team is responsible for implementing all the rules and guidelines that the BBC requires, and we're also responsible for explaining them to the Community. We're stuck in the middle, in other words, so we can expect to cop some flak aimed at the policy, not the people...

But it's always worth bearing in mind that it's our job to implement and explain these policies, but some policies don't come from h2g2 side, but from the BBC side. If you see a change that aids the development of the Community - more functionality, better editorial processes, more volunteer schemes, implementing Community-led ideas - then that's probably because we've driven those developments through from this end (often with lots of help from the Community). If you see a change that restricts Community activity slightly, the chances are that those policies are a result of a requirement from within the BBC, and we have to follow suit because we are a part of the BBC too. Some policies won't necessarily aid a cutting-edge project like h2g2, and some may even harm it, but that's the price we pay for having a home, and it's a price that is, in our humble opinion, worth paying for the continued existence of a site like this that, in all honesty, was always going to have a hard time making enough money to survive.

We respect your opinion, Subcom; hopefully you can respect our position!

(Small point: Mark, Peta and Abi are off to the Dutch meet tomorrow, so apologies if this is the last you'll hear from us for a while; there's lots to get organised, but we hope we've answered your main concerns.)