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

Is this really that big of a deal? Seriously?

SC

I've used my share of naughty words over the years and quite a number of s and ****s here on h2g2. But the truth of the matter is that under normal circumstances, profanity is unnecessary. We can all communicate quite well without it.

There was an instance last week in one of my conversations about raccoons. In my region of the US they are nearly always referred to by the last 4 letters of the word raccoon and have been for hundreds of years. There is absolutely nothing racial about it. We have streets, rivers, hunting clubs, etc whose names would be blocked by the h2g2 filter, to say nothing of the actual critter. A popular breed of cat contains those four letters as part of it's name. I found this annoying, but was able to participate in the discussion by using the entire word, raccoon.

I joked about filing a formal complaint that my culture was being discriminated against and I was personally offended by being refused use of the word. But it was just a joke since I am so often on the receiving end of complaints from the public about profanity and pornography filters that I genuinely sympathize with the italics on this issue.

Is there a list someplace of which words are disallowed? If so, I've missed it. If not, one would be helpful.

<> (Hypatia)

This list has been asked for on numerous occasions, ever since the filter was put into action. Apparently we are left to guess at which words are now deemed 'unacceptable', especially as the software for the filter has not been modified to show the 'offending word' when a post is failed.

I have no personal beef against the filter as such, I just would like to know which words are verboten and it would be extremely helpful when a post is failed that the 'forbidden' word be highlighted.

az

I've seen very few people complaining about the creation of the profanity filter. In fact, I don't recall any, off the top of my head.

I've seen a great number of people complaining about the attitudes of the editors as the filter was implimented.

Technologically, it has caused me very few problems.

But if it's driven some interesting people to leave the site, that's a pity. Again, most of these people seem to be more troubled by the editors' actions than by the filter itself.

(Actually, I keep hearing about the mass exodus, but I couldn't provide a list of names of people who've left. I can only think of two, and one of those left for other reasons, and one I don't know. I can, though, think of a couple who've reduced their involvement in the site, without actually leaving.)

TRiG.

<> (TRiG)

Well yeah, hit that nail right on its head, TRiG.

az

The initial response by the Italics when the filter was introduced wasn't ideal, as is the functionality of the filter itself, but I am convinced, without any doubt whatsoever, that the reaction and demeanour of a number of experienced and respected Researchers did everything to make the situation worse, and apparently they still are.

Their manner was childish, rude and quite surprisingly arrogant (sometimes not so surprisingly). They showed a complete lack of any desire to try and understand both sides of the story and any pressure the Eds might (or might not) be under from the BBC. They'd quite simply made up their mind about the situation and the motives of the Eds, and that was that. Some of them seemed convinced that the Eds had done it to get rid of them and eventually left. I think in the real world that's called paranoia. Since I still see some of those people posting from time to time, their threat of never darkening our doors seems quite hollow and if I ever had any respect for them it's long since withered away.

It was quite laughable to see some of the things that were said, some of the conspiracy theories that were thrown about, the claims of 'censorship'. Oh my goodness me.

The filter is still frustrating sometimes in the words it disallows and those it lets through - you can say 'shit' but you can't say that word for taking a leak that begins with 'p'. Leastways I couldn't last night. It's frustrating in that it doesn't hghlight the offending word.

But while some folks are still running around claiming that sky is falling, plenty of us still seem to be able to function as h2g2 citizens quite well. Funny, that.

After reading Hypatia's post above, I think I'm getting a little annoyed at the arbitrary use of the filter, myself.

Essentially, this is a "political correctness" filter as Hypatia describes her recent experience, not so much a profanity one. The context appears to be irrelevant. An odd position for a site to take which has as one of its founding tenets that writers are welcome. How welcome can a writer feel, when their very concepts have to follow a mystery list, their context stripped?

Counterproductive to the longevity and growth of the Edited Guide. Might want to think about the list issue, at least. Unless ditching the Edited Guide and turning this into a message board is the plan?

SC

<> (Gosho)

I haven't seen that. I've seen people like me and Nog saying we're only here part time now and I've seen others who have actually left here permanently.

<>

Conspiracy theories? Oh please do tell? First I've heard of this.

<>

What's even funnier is that many people are still just asking the same questions they've always asked. Why doesn't the software work better so that 'offending' words are highlighted when a post is failed? Why isn't there a clear list of 'unacceptable' words posted somewhere so that everyone on h2g2 would know what is and is not acceptable?

Nobody seems to get it. The profanity filter was never a problem in itself (even though some people disagreed with it). The problem was that it doesn't work properly. Why can't the software be tweaked to highlight the word that fails a post? I'm no geek but I also know this isn't a huge problem that couldn't be dealt with.

<>

It's not funny, Gosho. It just says that you accept everything that has happened here recently.

For those who missed it the umptieth times I have posted this before - I have no problem at all with the stupid filter (even though I disagree with it). What the real issue has always been was how badly the italics reacted to people here - people belonging to the Community - which made them feel that they were being insulted and treated as if their opinions didn't matter in the slightest. To the extent that they were threatened with having their accounts here revoked if they 'kept it up'.

Meanwhile, the BBC has *no* mandate against using swear words. Look at BBC online News articles, watch BBC television or listen to Radio 4 - you will hear and see a lot of examples of what Stephen Fry calls 'fruity language'.

I feel no personal need to use swear words on h2g2 (though I am really feeling like doing so now!) - it's total hypocricy and you know it.

Stupid stuff like not being able to use bastard in the plural form? What??? It beggars belief. Do any of you actually think any ten-year-old child doesn't know of all these supposed swear words that h2g2 seems intent on 'protecting' them from? And as if ten-year-old kids would actually be interested in this place anyhow.

az

"I've seen a great number of people complaining about the attitudes of the editors as the filter was implimented."

"The reaction and demeanour of a number of experienced and respected Researchers did everything to make the situation worse."

I never said they were right to complain, I was just clarifying what they were complaining about.

And I'm not going to judge who was in the right or wrong without first refreshing my memory by rereading all the threads concerned. This I do not plan to do any time soon, if ever.

TRiG.

Excellent post, az.

Great Gods, what have I started... I'll be bared from this site next!

Around May I had a disagreement with the Radio Two site and got pre-modded off the message boards... I went "grrrr....." and walked away from the BBC sites completely.... I come back later in the year under a different name to discover AgProv is still pre-modded on Radio Two but accepted everywhere else. Which is interesting, because I had thought that having been excluded from one BBC forum meant I was barred from everything, including h2g2, as a matter of course. But it doesn't seem to work like that - it's only Radio Two who still seem to have a problem with me and I can freely post everywhere else, subject to the usual reasonable rules. (I tend to use another identity for Radio Two and get on there by stealth, anyway, as older messageboard hands tell me this is the fastest way to get round banning and pre-mod)

Coming back, in a "where were we?" frame of mind to check up on unfinished business and part-completed Entries, I run into the business where the word denoting {illegitimate person or rough side of a file, or, colloquially, an unworthy person}is seemingly banned from h2g2, where it was not before...

And the replies have been most illuminating!

(And how CAN John Major famously describe his Cabinet colleagues on h2g2, if the word he actually historically used is not available to him...)

I think what gets to me the most is not the idiotic automod; which is simply annoying but easily "get-round-able"; for instance; we post in anagrams to match the halloween rash of name-tweaking.

But undoubtedly at some point in this or other threads which attempt to discuss the situation; we will no doubt fairly soon get our wrists slapped for doing so; probably followed by a "This thread is closed" notice. Obviously, that tactic ensures no dialogue whatsoever is possible.

Eventually people with something to say will quite possibly give up. There is only so much toeing of the party line most reasonably intelligent people can take. Anybody who would like a list of people i previously had interesting discussions with on this site, who have now fled to blogs on various sites; please ask. Sad, very sad.

zdt

This is a steaming great mountain that started off as a tiny molehill and neither side can claim any moral high ground, but if a small (and vocal) number of Researchers who really ought to know better had behaved like adults instead of acting like a four year-old who's just had it's favourite toy taken away from it and refrained from throwing a collective tantrum, I think the situation could have taken a much more positive and constructive direction. I saw the Eds needled to the point where even the most intense customer service training would break down. I don't know why they were so reticent and unforthcoming at the outset, but I know for sure that the reaction and behaviour of a vociferous minority of Researchers did nothing to help, and everything to make a difficult situation worse.

I would certainly agree that there's no one in particular to blame more than anyone else - especially as we don't know the entire story behind the adoption of the filter. I certainly wish we did, though no doubt some information is classified. Nevertheless, I think we still have a right to be annoyed by the italics' conduct - though I suppose, then, that they also have a right to be annoyed by that of some Researchers.

Hi all, as a newcomer to the bbc site but having used various types of message board systems on the net over the years including chat rooms, prior to loads of them being closed down, I find the ongoing debate here about swearing and the use of a profanity filter highly amusing, even though it's meant to be a serious subject.

For those who don't know or don't recall, a lot of the main ISP providers like msn and yahoo closed their chat rooms simply because a minority couldn't be trusted not to use persistent foul and abusive language as well as the risk of 'grooming kids', but primarily the abuse of the service.

The choice is very simple isn't it? If a debate or chat can't be had without using foul language then should you be chatting in the first place? If you were out in the street using foul language you would risk being arrested and charged with behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace or similar. That being the case why should you do it on message boards or in chat rooms and get away with it?

Yes I also know kids today could probably teach us oldies a few swear words we've never heard of but that doesn't make things right when it comes to putting the same in writing for all to see of any age, at any time, on a public forum such as this site.

As for the BBC policy on swearing I think you'll find the 9pm threshold seems to work reasonably well, they're not saying no swearing on tv or radio, just after a time when most kids should, in theory, be in bed or at least not watching/listening.

Thats down to parental control not the BBC.

The same applies to the internet and kids. Parents should monitor what they surf, where they surf and set appropriate controls, all available and easy to use. Simple rule again, no tv or pc in kids bedrooms.

Seems to me this particular site has it covered with a very good smiley anyway so where is the problem?

Well, that's my 2 bobs worth. Off now to continue investigating this place.

Actually the Eds did answer why there isn't a list (and why the offending word isn't highlighted when it fails). I think it was something to do with not wanting to make it explicit what the words that will pass are (as such a list would make it easier to swear). We probably shouldn't complain about this, otherwise we will end up with a very explicit list with much more on it than the invisible list of what currently fails.

It's also worth remembering that the filter works in a number of ways. One is the words that get failed outright. The other is the words that get referred to moderation to be checked in context.

Also, afaik the filter wasn't designed for h2g2, but for elsewhere in bbcland. We got it as part of the general move, and I imagine we reacted the worst because we have much more freedom than other sites. But there is no need to analyse the filter in terms of the ethos of h2g2 because it wasn't about us.


One of the Eds will probably have to read this thread on Monday, which will be time consuming but not particularly productive I imagine as there doesn't appear to be anything being said that hasn't been said before.


I was away when the filter arrived (thank god). But I do think an A page explaining how the filter works would be useful. Alot of the issues being brought up in this thread have actually been addressed in various places. It'd be good if someone could gather that info together and put it on a linkable page. I don't think this is the Eds job, but am always interested to see how little the community wants to do these kinds of things for themselves.

<> (doctordouble_trouble)

Um, nobody is complaining about the filter existing. Nor is anyone insisting on swearing.

But kea is right. All of this has been said before and, as it's doubtful that anything will change in terms of clarification or performance, this thread is probably a waste of time.


az

>>>
The reason the filter does not highlight which word fails is two-fold. Firstly so that it doesn't make it easy for people to choose a misspelling to bypass the filter and secondly because it's up to you to ensure you don't use words that the filter will fail.

We've revised the filter a couple of times since it was installed in response to feedback from h2g2 Community members regarding words that have cross-over meanings. But we're tied by what we can and cannot change specifically because we don't wish to become targetted by members of other communities that have stricter rules.
<<< (Smij)

F47998?thread=2911819#p33763107

"If you were out in the street using foul language you would risk being arrested and charged with behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace or similar."

Really? What country do you live in?

Actually, didn't something very strange happen in Britain a couple of months ago? A teenager being charged by a policewoman, if my memory doesn't fail me.

If you're directly insulting someone, you can be charged, but otherwise, can you? Of course, if you're in someone's house, you shouldn't use foul language if they don't want you to, even if it's not directed at anyone, but on the street you should be free to do as you please.

In someone's house: <./>HouseRules</.>.

TRiG.

Well, yes, and in my other incarnation of "AgProv" I don't swear (much) anyway, but I do reserve the right if there is really no other alternative...

It's all very well to say "thou shalt not swear, ever" but there is inevitably going to be a grey area.

Has any Guide researcher done Mount Everest, Sir Edmund Hilary or Sherpa Tenzing? In any of these stories you have to include the first words spoken at Everest's summit by Tenzing, which are

"Well, we've done the büugger!"

Or in British Monarchs: what about the last words of King George V, who having just heard a flunkey trying to console him by saying how nice English coastal resorts are at this time of year:-

"Oh, büugger Bognor!"

And the example I've already quoted here: British prime major John major, thinking he is talking "off the record" to a journalist, does not notice the tape is still running and the mike is still live, and who then calls his cabinet "a bunch of b@stards"

Or TV and drama critic Kenneth Tynan, the first man to say "fook"! on british television.


These things have to be quoted in Guide entries, surely? Or else they are not as complete as they might be and some appealing human detail is lost.