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

People will be shunted off because it appears that h2g2 is allowed to contain any material of sexual nature, ie no sex lives of the animals anymore and no articles on how to recover from sexual abuse.

And we are still keyboard bashing over it, because the community that we have here is important to some people and they don't want to lose it.

I'm not saying that the community isn't important, and I am not dismissing in any way shape or form the ability to post on those kind of topics or write guide entries about them.

All I meant was that someone within broadcasting house has had too many complaints, took a look at certain entries from the site and decided that some EP needs to be introduced. I would be surprised if they looked round the site any further than the entries which were removed. I think it is a done deal, and no matter what we as a community think, it is the beebs toy now and they can do what they want with it. I would be sorry to see the sanitisation happen, but it looks like it will anyway

" someone within broadcasting house has had too many complaints"

Seems to me part of the point is that there is no evidence of any complaints. If the articles in question had been Yikesed, and therefore removed then an explanation would have been availible and no one would have beens quite so much up in arms (apart from the authors)

It seems to me that these decisions are just a diktak from up above not based on any rules that can be verified.

True, but I'll keep keyboard bashing cause thats my way! You never know, someone might be listening?!

Kaz, I had forgotten that the friendships forged here were more than social. You are right, it *isn't* 'only a website'. Thank you for pointing that out.

Ben

hi kilted jedi. you said "and decided that some EP needs to be introduced"... fine. let them tell us what it is then, rather than just saying no arbitrarily and refusing to respond to requests for clarification.

the bbc bought h2g2 because of the community. they then shut it down for months, and braught it back crippled, and still refuse to interact properly with the community.

that is the problem. if they want to make arbitrary rules and knee jerk deletions, then they will do, and there is little we can do about it. As someone else has said, it is their sandpit we are playing in.

however we are the ones bringing all the sand, and the buckets and spades, and if they keep showing the current level of contempt for their users, then they will ed up with the system they are working towards, where the only things you can talk about are pointless, and no new guide entries get writen because too many are sensored without providing reasons.

"you see, I had this donkey, and was training it not to eat... the first week went very well, so did the second week, but just when I thought it had suceeded, it died for no apparent reason..."

" no one would have beens quite so much up in arms (apart from the authors)"

If my entry had been yikesed, I'd have been a bit disgruntled, and probably moaned a bit about what a petty, narrow minded person the yikeser must have been. I certainly wouldn't have started a thread in "Ask" complaining about it, though.

The point, and the reason I got so aerated about it, is that as far as I've been able to find out, EVERYONE who has read it and reacted, liked it and didn't think it was offensive. As far as I'm aware, not a single user has complained about it. (I've asked for confirmation, but information about moderation is confidential, even if that information is that there isn't any information, apparently ).

Also, if it had been moderated I would have received some sort of explanation, and if the moderation email was a standard one, been offered the opportunity to rewrite the entry in a less offensive form and resubmit it.

I HAVE rewritten it in a less offensive form and resubmitted it, and I've been instructed to remove it from Peer Review by Natalie herself.

There has for over five weeks been no clue as to what was offensive about it, what could be done to fix it, or even if it's fixable. It's conceivable that in the mind of the person responsible for pulling it it's unfixable, and the subject of videotaping oneself "at it" is simply not discussable on this website, even in the most straightforward and neutral of nontittilating terms.

One other thing - the moderation process has NEVER, to my knowledge, removed an Edited Entry. This is because such entries have, by definition, been approved by the staff of h2g2, and are therefore guaranteed not to be in breach of the House Rules. And the moderation process is for entries which break House Rules. Mine didn't - so there was no way they could have used the moderation process in any case without simply lying.

The trouble is, I have no idea, even now, what rules if any it did break. If it didn't break any, it's just random caprice that has deleted it - and that's no way to run a community collaborative website.

FB

Xyroth: "the bbc bought h2g2 because of the community."

Actually - no. None of us know why the BBC bought h2g2, but I would posit that they bought it because of the technology. They have certainly put more funding into developing DNA than into developing h2g2, and when you have no other clues, follow the money...

Since actions speak louder than words, my guess is that the BBC have no interest in the community as such. And, to be honest, there is no business or broadcasting reason why they should. This is why it behooves us to behave responsibly in our commuications with them off-site. If we send them emails, (and the case for that has massively diminished now that there is clearly stuff going on behind the scenes again), then we MUST be aware that we are ambassadors for the site amongst people who have total control over us.

Not a fun place to be, but reality nonetheless.

B

I think perhaps it is not a black or white situation as to whether or not the BBC care about our community, whilst I take Bens point that the technology is important for the BEEB, I reckon tht having the Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy on BBCi is a feather in the cap (it is after all a hugely popular book, as weel as being succesful Radio and Tv show).

I expect that h2g2 provides some of the "diversity" that the BBC is obliged to provide as our public service broadcaster; and in that they would be reluctant to let go of it. Thats not to say they wont neuter it to such a degree that we all loose interest in it thought so I suppose we had better be careful. Nevertheless on the censorship issue I for one think we should fight the good fight.

"Nevertheless on the censorship issue I for one think we should fight the good fight."



The operative word is of course "good". We really don't want to be seen as a bunch of mindless jerks, because we all know what happens to them...

B

I agree with Ben, that the BBC 's interest in h2g2 was the technology. But the technology is related to community activity. I think the BBC is interested in having online communities, (probably connected with Tony Blair's expressed wish to get Britain online). What they are not, or have never to date shown interest in, is the guide. So they have no particular interest in the writing community.

The BBC gains nothing from the guide. Although perhaps, if third parties start picking up on entries as happened with Ben's short words one (btw congratulations Ben on that) they might start to see that they could have something to gain.


Just a quibble.

Oh, and when talking of 'the BBC' I'm referring to the Corporation. I'm sure there are individuals within the BBC, including our h2g2 staff obviously, who are interested in the whole of h2g2, guide and all.
Waz

"The BBC gains nothing from the guide."

I disagree, the BBC in order to justify it's continued existance (something I personally think is very important) needs to demonstrate diversity. Things like the guide show that the BBC is commited to using new media technology, and engaging with the public, as I stated earlier I rather think it is a feather in the cap as well having h2g2.

I agree. I wasn't clear. I meant that I don't think the BBC see that they have much to gain. Perhaps they haven't even thought about it - it's not their project, they inherited it with the technology. They don't 'own' it in current management speak.

Ben: "Actually - no. None of us know why the BBC bought h2g2, but I would posit that they bought it because of the technology."

I wouldn't be surprised if you're right. But we were told that it was because of the community!

BBC press release, 21 February 2001:

> The BBC believes the new site will be a valuable
> Research & Development resource, helping its
> understanding of online communities at a time when
> it is increasing its efforts to create communities on
> the web, in line with the BBC's remit as a public
> service. It also presents an opportunity for the BBC
> to continue its long and successful relationship with
> Douglas Adams.
>
> Ashley Highfield, Director of New Media, says: "The
> launch of www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2 represents a
> significant step towards 'engaging with' rather than
> 'broadcasting to' our consumers. As a key part of our
> public service offering in building communities on the
> web we want to ensure that we will offer something of
> interest to the diverse tastes of the UK's online community."

(A685523)

> As a key part of our
> public service offering in building communities on the
> web we want to ensure that we will offer something of
> interest to the diverse tastes of the UK's online community."

Hmmm. "building ccommunities" Plural, and new ones at that. Don't forget that H2G2 was "Not Invented Here"

Wish I felt more cheerful.

B

Okay. Buy h2g2, take their technology somewhere else. Kill h2g2.

hmmmm... No, they probably couldn't say that.

"One other thing - the moderation process has NEVER, to my knowledge, removed an Edited Entry"

It is possible that this could happen. *All* pages on h2g2 have the complaints button/link on them, and it is available to be used on any entry, Edited or otherwise. Don't forget that as we don't discuss individual Moderation decisions on site, Researchers might not be aware of what has been removed in the past.

"Okay. Buy h2g2, take their technology somewhere else. Kill h2g2."

I am sure that wasn't their intention.

B

Hopefully not!

xyroth's donkey story was better anyway.