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

Actually, Ottox, I'd say it's the diametric opposite of devolution. It's a greater concentration and exercise of power from the centre - which is hardly what you'd expect or want from a corporation dedicated to pushing forward the concept of web-based communities, and even less what you'd expect from a corporation expecting to be able to do that at a cut price.

Surely it is axiomatic for any such venture that if you are aiming to do what you're doing for as little money as possible (and the BBC wants to do almost everything for as little money as possible), then the simplest way of doing that is devolving power downwards to the community? The problem being that there are those who don't mind delegating RESPONSIBILITY, but balk at devolving AUTHORITY.

And responsibility without authority just means being a whipping boy. If it goes right, you get no credit, if it goes wrong, you get the blame.

Where is the AUTHORITY in this situation? And where is the RESPONSIBILITY? The answer *should* be the same. If it's not, whoever has got themselves stuck with the responsibility (most likely Natalie), has my sympathy. Been there, done that.

Of course, if they are the same, the continued lack of communication is simply unprofessional abrogation of the responsibility bit. But...

I've had an email from Lynne Berelson - PA to Ashley Highfield, Director of New Media and Technology. At least *somebody* is paying attention...

FB

Oohh. That is good news!

I *said* that the communications would start flowing eventually IF we were polite and played by the rules.



I know the phrase "internet time" is out of date, but it is easy to forget that time is much more condensed here in site, when there is a simulposting mob baying for blood, compared with the normal disruptions and prioritisations of a 40 (or 60) hour week when your colleagues or bosses are on holidays. So the words "internet time" apply, even if they mean the direct opposite of what they ment in the 90s.

B

Yay, some sort of response

So, open question - how far does the community need to be gelded before you would think 'sod it' and pack it in? or stop you writing for the Edited Guide? Until later....
BCNU - Crescent

Speaking personally?

I have already almost completely stopped writing entries for the Edited Guide. This is because the Guidelines for the EG are so po-faced and restrictive.

I never ever put my poetry on site, and that is because of the copyright issues.

I do occasionally put prose pieces into the AWW <./>RF5</.> for the UnderGuide.

The reason I keep coming back is that I have made some important real life and virtual friendships here. So for me, the equation is about 60% community, 38% UnderGuide and 2% Edited Guide.

In other words I find the *existing* writing guidelines too restrictive to keep me here, if that was my only reason for being here.

Ben

I stopped before I started EG-wise - as soon as I found out the "secret" bad rules which weren't part of the written guidelines but are in the way the staff operate the site. I had no problem with the giving up of copyright and wouldn't have been putting in anything which came remotely close to breaking House Rules (all intellectual/academic stuff not sexual or illegal). So changing the level of content acceptable via the guidelines is completely irrelevant as far as I'm concerned (except in that I believe FB's article should have been fine).

The GRID IS DEAD!!! See http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/F114453?thread=301396 for further details. Terri (Bet it doesn't mean Eustace A1036676 will get the black bits removed though. Too late, he's gone elsewhere....)

Jus marking the convo so I can finish reading the blog a bit later.