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

Entry: A Gentleman's Guide to the Use of a Camcorder - A1085636
Author: Frumious Bandersnatch - U189494


For the first time, as far as I'm aware, an Edited Entry has been deleted from the Guide because, and I quote, "Editorial Policy have made the decision that the entry [original title] breaks the BBC's guidelines for content and have instructed us to remove it from h2g2."

The email goes on to say:

"If you would like to re-write your contribution to remove the problem, then we'd be very happy for you to add it to the Guide again."

So I've done exactly that.

The original seemed to get a generally positive response on its first time through Peer Review (it got picked in a little under three weeks), so I'm hoping that this revised (Bowdlerised?) version will be similarly well received and will also be picked.

Thanks!

NB: Please note - this entry is a guide to the sensible use of camcorders. It does not concern or condone the filming of any activity in particular.

B

FB wrote: "this entry is a guide to the sensible use of camcorders. It does not concern or condone the filming of any activity in particular."

If that is the case, then why all the concern in the entry about someone finding and watching the tapes? Surely that would be a concern if the tapes were of the naughty variety, but markedly less so if what you've filmed is your homemade version of Red Dwarf. The people in the latter film still are likely to look like idiots, but chances are they made the film because they *wanted* people to see it.

In fact, although you claim this about camcorder use in general, it certainly doesn't come across that way. When I think of camcorder use in general, I think of:

1) recording family events, vacations, children's plays or sporting events, children's milestones (first steps, haircut, etc.)
2) making cheesy, scripted movies, with cheesy costumes and cheesy special effects -- these often involve casts of all ages
3) making "naughty" home movies, of the variety that the original EG entry was about

This entry, as it stands, is completely irrelevant to categories #1 and #2 above. So even if I was to read this without having read the previous entry, I probably would have come to the conclusion that it was really mostly about category #3, but that the author, for whatever reason, couldn't or wouldn't come right out and say that.

"I probably would have come to the conclusion that it was really mostly about category #3, but that the author, for whatever reason, couldn't or wouldn't come right out and say that."

And you'd be right.

I thought I explained that in posting #1?

FB

You did. But you also claimed that the entry was about using camcorders in *general*, and not about filming anything in specific.

Again, I quote: "Please note - this entry is a guide to the sensible use of camcorders. It does not concern or condone the filming of any activity in particular."

And as I pointed out, this statement does not hold up when you look at the entry.

You may think that. I could not possibly comment.

FB

PR's terribly quiet today... must be the lovely sunny weather we're having (in the UK at least...)

FB

Hi Frumious
I remember the first one, and as far as I can recall this one is just as informative and amusing.
Mikey has a point though - it seems to be the activity that dare not speak its name, thus possibly misleading dull innocents into misapprehending the likely content and getting a shock (rather than searching it out and reading it on purpose if it was frankly titled, as is commonly found with teenagers looking for the 'dirty' words in dictionaries). You might as well have titled the entry 'Putting up the greenhouse part 2'

I thought you were pretty restrained with first one - no gratuitous eroticism, just practical tips for a subject that could be tricky to talk openly about.


But nevertheless it was yikesed. Hmmm Tricky.

In order to avoid the criticism levelled at the original one (was it purely the 'p' word? Don't want my post getting moderated!) without being misleading in the title which has led to Mikey's criticism...

You could link it to A507034 Alfresco Sex - that one got past the censor.

Pimms

Technical point.

The original entry was *NOT* yikesed. It was removed on the orders of BBC management under the auspices of the somewhat nebulous 'Editorial Policy'.

'somewhat nebulous'? Does this mean it is open to interpretation, hard to pin down, while also being unfortunately an autocratic view that can not be argued with [thinks: pornography on a par with Iraq]? Where is it published?

Pimms L

Would it be the 'sexually oriented' bit in the Terms and Conditions of posting to BBCi communities?

"Unlawful, harassing, defamatory, abusive, threatening, harmful, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, racially offensive or otherwise objectionable material is not acceptable;"

How can h2g2 be about Life the Universe and Everything (all done in the nicest possible taste) if it excludes well-written amusing entries like the one Frumious had tendered before?

Pimms L

To avoid having this debate in two threads (this is, after all, PR and we should try and keep on topic ) try;

F19585?thread=288228

For further and better particulars of the whole sorry state of affairs.

*volunteers useless information*

Three threads, actually - there's one in <./>Feedback-Editorial</.> as well. But you know what Hoov's like when he's being obtuse...

B

Obtuse!? I object to that. Not terribly strongly, but I'd plead that in this case, despite any disagreement you may have with my method of expression, you must surely concede that I have a point, and that something odd and undesirable is happening? (I'm simultaneously happy and sad that I'm not the only one it's happening to - KerrAvon has had an Edited Entry deleted recently too, so YAY! it's not just me, but BOO! it seems to be a systemic problem instead of a vendetta against me personally. I think I'd actually rather it was the latter - at least I'd be the only one affected directly)

All of which is off topic.

The original did NOT break the House Rules. Neither does this. Apparently, in allowing the original to remain visible, and even get picked, sub edited, edited, and appear on the Front Page, the Editors were too lax in their application of the House Rules, according to "Editorial Policy".

I hope this entry does NOT contravene those guidelines. However, I have no way of knowing for sure, because when I asked directly in an email to the BBC why the original had been hidden, the response began with the words "I imagine". Don't they KNOW?

All of which is almost as far off topic as the other stuff.

Let's get down to nitty-gritty PR stuff - is this ready for the Edited Guide, people? If not, what would you like to see altered?

Looking forward to some quality feedback...

FB

I already gave feedback, and you simply dismissed it. If this is truly to be an entry about "A Gentleman's Guide to the Use of a Camcorder", amd not solely and specifically about how to make home naughty movies then I do think it needs to deal with the points I raise above (such as in post #4).

I was hoping for feedback from someone ELSE, actually, but since you've posted...

I dismissed it, Mikey, because it's not relevant to this entry.

The entry is about what it's about, and nothing else. If you want an entry about what you're talking about, then I suggest you write it yourself.

The silly tone of the title is intended (and I think does manage) to convey that this is not a straightforward article. Therefore, complaining that it is not a straightforward article is therefore irrelevant.

I could have written an article entitled "Some interesting uses for whipped cream and cucumbers", and noted the silky texture and decadent desirability of the former and the firm, smooth cylindrical form of the latter without ever suggesting *explicitly* that one could employ them as other than foodstuffs.

And no doubt if I had you'd deliberately miss the point again, and complain I hadn't mentioned the possibility of putting whipped cream on strawberries or cucumbers in salads.

This entry is what it is because of arbitrary censorship and a refusal, so far at least, to offer any specific explanation for it. I've attempted to Bowdlerise it to the point where it can replace the entry that Editorial Policy demanded to have deleted. Suggesting that I write a different entry entirely isn't, I'm afraid, useful feedback, it's just mising the point.

FB

"I was hoping for feedback from someone ELSE"

Now that _is_ shameless self-promotion. When I put an entry in PR, I'd be glad of feedback of the quality of Mikey's.

For what it's worth, I agree with Mikey, though. I think you're better off fighting to have the original put back.

B

But that isn't "feedback", that is a request to write a completely different entry. Peer Review is for feedback on *this* entry, isn't it?

If someone *else* wants to write an entry on the technical issues of viedoing, say, a wedding, well hey, I'll read it. But this isn't it, OK? Please read, and criticise, the entry as written, and don't ask me to write a completely different one, because I'm not going to. I'll alter this one, if someone makes a useful suggestion, but a top-to-bottom change is, I think, apart from anything else, *obviously* not needed as the original (non-Bowdlerised) version got into the EG with hardly any problems at all.

FB

No, we're not saying write a completely different type of entry. What we're telling you, in the feedback you requested, is that your title and introduction sets the reader up for something that you have absolutely no intention on delivering. You apparently seem to find this cute or something, whereas I think that it takes what could be a somewhat decent entry and makes it rather less so.

If anything, I think this entry has *greater* chances of being problematic than the original. With the original entry, no reader could complain that they didn't know what they were getting themselves into when they clicked on the title. That clearly isn't the case here.