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

"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."

Presumably though if an entry has been removed through the moderation process, the author would kno why, even if they didn't know who yikesed it.

Ferrettbadger, you have to bear in mind that some of these things are not yikesed through the moderation process at all. As can be seen in the case of those recent EG articles, the yikesings explicitly did not follow the moderation procedure. The italics have already admitted as much and also no official reason for the removal has been given to FB (as should have happened as part of the proper moderation procedure).

In theory, since ownership of an EG article has been passed to the BBC, the original author(s) might not receive a yikesing email from the automated system just as they can no longer delete the entry. In FB's case he had a non-EG copy which was also removed.

Another thing to consider is that a lot of the old and now deleted entries were written by in-house staff. So no-one on site would be made aware of this. There may also be some written by researchers who have long since left h2g2, lost their account details or changed email and so don't receive any notification or come back to complain about their article being deleted from the EG.

"xyroth's donkey story was better"... thanks, but it did make the point rather effectively. there isa limit to how long you can keep damaging something before you lose that which was valuable.

I think "helping it's understanding of online communities" partly sums up the problem. those who understand it (including the italics) don't have enough power, and those with the power don't understand it.

As to "engaging with our customers", part of the problem is that those with the authority to damage the site have repeatedly refused to engage with the customers.

As to what value the bbc gets from h2g2, apart from the guide, they get an enthusiastic set of testers who push the technology to breaking point, and are moderately prepared to tolerate a catastrophic failure of the servers when it breaks.

this by itself is a service which money just can't buy. software companies spend a fortune getting software from the point where it works to the point where it works well under severe load. the bbc is getting this for (almost) free, and all they need to do to keep it is to actually tell us what is happening.

not much to ask really, is it?

If Mina is correct n there have been EG been deleted then we ought to be grateful that FB has such a strong personaility n made us all aware of what could happen

Oh, I am sure we are all grateful for the strenght of FB's personality.

Good point about the testers, Xyroth - dumb of me to forget that.

B

Yeah Xyroth,

Good skills, that is a very good point

Mina isn't saying that other EG entries have been deleted - she is apparently saying that she isn't saying that other EG entries either have or have not been deleted.
Rather like Peta's rebuke to FB, when Peta said that she wasn't saying whether or not Editorial Policy is located in the same building or same city as h2g2.

This is all part of the BBC's unique commitment to honesty and openness.
-MyRedDice

For the record, I'm against this censorship...
It seems too much like a dictatorship if someone high up can decide to remove an EG entry, and not even give a reason for it... If H2G2 get's hit by this full scale, and only educational, "safe" entries are allowed, then I'm off to another community!!! Not that I'm blaming anyone... yet...

Lucinda - it wasn't Peta. I *think* it was Ashley, although it might have been Natalie. I don't think it was Peta, though...

" If H2G2 get's hit by this full scale, and only educational, "safe" entries are allowed, then I'm off to another community!!! "

Lets hope not eh

I am pretty sure it was Ashley, actually.

Peta's remit here on h2g2 is very limited, and she sticks to it pretty closely. Natalie hardly ever posts here at all, and has been noticable by her absence in this particular storm in a tea-cup. It doesn't sound like Mina, and it doesn't really sound like Jimster.

And I have a vague Ashely-ish memory attached to that stage of events.

Ben

Actually, on the subject of remits, sfaik Mina's is Community rather than Editorial, and this is an Editorial issue.

Ok, it has since then become a Community one, but I don't think Mina *can* say anything.

B

Twas indeed Ashley. Posts 251, 270.

My apologies to Peta.

Hmmm I wonder, Is anybody at all confident of a "good" solution to this issue happening at all?

chuckle chuckle

Oddly enough, yes I am.

I think it will involve a mix of flexibility and realism on the part of the community, and flexibility and attention to detail by the Italics.

But the problems here have been lack of communication, and lack of ownership by an assortment of BBC employees, and a certain tendency towards hysteria and childishness amongst the community.

(The Clone-Wars approach was completely counter-productive. Behaving like trolling and spamming net-wierdos is NOT the way to be treated like polite and responsible adults.)

Mystic Ben predicts that a non-software based solution will be worked out. That the scope of what we are able to publish here will be reduced, more than we would like, but nowhwere near as much as we fear. That the site will be a little bit blander and less quirky as a result. That some good entries will disappear after negotiation with the authors. That even more good entries which *could* have been written will not appear. And that subversives like Lucinda and me will continue to push the boundaries with entries like '7 Card W**kstain' and 'The Short Guide to Short Words' to see what happens when we do.

It's called evolution, boys and girls. We may not like it, but I am afraid we have to live with it.

Ben
*feeling more cheerful about the situation than she has for a long time*

Devolution