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

I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw that the team had selected the "Snowberry" story for a front page feature. It is, as I have forcefully pointed out, a work of almost pure fiction or the meanderings of a clouded memory. Surely we need people to read the site without making them either laugh aloud or be disillusioned. Do the team pay any attention to any comment or do they snigger over their tea (or coffee) at the simple idiots who take the site seriously as we thought it should be.

I am surprised too. I see that it has been edited and reference to throwing mines overboard has been removed. I also see that your objections have been left, which is a partial move in the right direction - but with so many good stories, one wonders why this one has been singled out.

I see though that this has been left in: "For anti-aircraft (AA) defence there was a Lewis gun as well as a Tommy gun for use at the wings of the bridge" I had quite forgotten about the tommy gun, that must have really put the wind up the Luftwaffe if they ever heard about it!

I overlooked this, which is still in: "It was common to be ... rolling 45 degrees". You get to that angle only once and keep on going the full 180° don't you?

You are wasting your time gentlemen. Does head, banging, brick wall, against ring any bells. I like the article as it is.

It brings a certain science fiction to the site to go with the other dubious stories that have been accepted regards beniton

Hi Peter. Is there any way on this blessed earth of ours to penetrate through to the team or the one who selected this. It brings the whole site into disrepute and shows a disgusting disregard not only for the site but for every navy veteran who reads it. Whoever is doing this should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. There is absolutely no excuse. I wonder what the popular press will say when they get wind of what is going on. They are simply not doing the job they are payed for. Good job I am not his or her boss, he or she would be looking for work in another field. It is indeed a tragedy after all this effort.

Dear All

Thank you again for your comments. The Snowberry article was put on the Front page again because the site was being shown to a great number of people - it was chosen precisely because of the discussion it created. We wanted to show off the fact that this is possible. That research, debate, and analysis of sources and their validity can be seen and recorded is why I find this site so interesting. Harry, you must have seen a documentary, for example, that you felt to be wrong. Wouldn't you have preferred it you could add your opinion and your reason for holding it and for your opinion to then be there every time that documentary was watched?

It may seem a new way of doing things, particularly at Auntie Beeb, but history has always been made this way. Personal opinions, hard evidence and debate lead to a consensus about what most likely happened.

Best wishes

Paul - WW2 Team

What a load of rubbish the article should be put along side the BBc's programme 'Destination D Day'.

If you are not going to take things seriously why are you bothering. It was chosen to start a debate. I like that, when you drop a big clanger dont listen to anybody especially those with first hand knowledge then start a debate to cover up the cracks.

Yes i see now how the BEEB does it. They spend thousands of pounds worth of licence payers money and make a pile of crap to start a debate, i see regards beniton

Dear Paul

With respect you are confusing two things: fact and opinion. You really must unentangle these two in your mind. For example, if someone asserts that Christopher Columbus discovered America in 1490, and a more informed person asserts that s/he is wrong and that he first landed there in 1492, we are not dealing with equally valid opinions that can be debated nor can we reach a balanced compromise of 1491.

It is only opinions that can be debated, not facts. You put forward an opinion in a 'thesis', countered by a differing opinion in 'antithesis', and reach a compromise between the two in a final 'synthesis'. But you simply cannot apply Hegelianism to facts. If you say that the length of a Churchill Infantry tank was 24 ft 5 inches, and I say that it was 20 feet in length, we cannot both be right nor can we reach a compromise. We are either both wrong or one of us is right - and in this example it would be you who was correct. Neither of the two examples I have given can be debated. If you live in a two bedroom appartment and I stupidly insist that you live in a four bedroom appartment, there is nothing to debate.

I have seen a lot that is mistaken in postings and have discussed many of them in emails with friends on this site, we have let the errors go without any comment because we have realised that they are well intended results of fallible memories. At other times corrections of fact have led to thanks. But I simply do not understand where a story is repleat with errors, even if due to a faulty memory, the errors are not only accepted but singled out for prominence. How many kids do you suppose bother to read any comments to a story? And if a few do read the correcting comments, what then? Do they spin a coin or say "I like this version better"?

Peter

Dear Beniton

Firstly, may I ask you to please keep your tone and language civil while posting in these forums to prevent your messages being moderated.

Secondly, the BBC did not create this story, nor any of the others that will go in the archive. Do you have evidence that the author of the Snowberry article is not a veteran? You say that you "have spent [your] life researching veterans stories". If someone tells you something that you have not heard before, or seems unlikely, do you turn to them and tell them they are wrong, or do you go and investigate other sources and make up your mind after considering as much information as possible?

Best wishes

Paul - WW2 Team

Paul,
I cannot believe you said that and used such an example. The story is too dubious to warrant being set up so we can make serious comment.
I can only agree with what Peter says and some of what Beniton says, sensible discussion will not be raised from such stories as this.
I have watched your postings Paul and never seen you deviate to this extent before did you have your tongue in your cheek.
Regards Frank.

I do research all my veterens stories and in the work i do i challenge their stories with my findings but it seems you dont do that. As it seems if it wasnt for Harry Hargreaves and Peter the researcher you would have in theory let the story stand and changed History as you have tried in the 'D Day Landings.

I pay my licence fee like many others and i can challenge what the money is spent on. The BBC hold the worlds record for the longest running licence fee and we are sick of it regards beniton

Dear Frank

I was talking about the principles behind it, and there are of course better examples of research on the site. This specific example was chosen to show how fractious these discussions get and how difficult it can be to convey this new idea to our audience, many of whom have a view of the BBC as being a sort of omnipotent being that speaks the truth. The idea of the public being given the tools to create stuff and comment on it and analyse it can be a difficult thing for some people to get their heads round, but (perhaps because I'm rather prone to cynicism) I am a big fan of it - I think the world would be a far better place if people made up their own minds a bit more often.

Best wishes

Paul - WW2 Team

Dear Beniton

As has been explained many times before, this is a community website of what we call 'user-generated content', which means that the responsibility for that content lies to a very large extent with the community that visits the site. We do not research and fact check this content, but we allow others to do it to create a more complete picture. This is not simply because your licence fee would vastly increase if we were to attempt to do so (you once wrote that you had spent two years looking for information about a veteran's story - even with current numbers that might need 20,000 years of staff time), but also because it is an impossibility to say with complete accuracy what may or may not have happened 60 years ago. This site is about people telling us what they remembered, how they remember it. I have had relatives who have exaggerated and embellished stories of their life, but I never felt that they weren't worth listening to.

I also pay my licence fee, and the BBC produces a lot of material that I don't like - we all have a view on how it should be spent. I'm sorry that you think People's War is a waste of money.

Best wishes

Paul - WW2 Team

Even your own words contradict what you say. The 'user generated community' and its members on this site before your very eyes are complaining about the ongoing vast discrepancies in the stories you are allowing to reach the front page and fester and change the course of history are you listening.

Its older heads whom i have a respect for are challenging you to do something about it before you put the lid on its coffin and futur generations are hoodwinked.

I never ever said the Peoples war site is a waste of money. I dont have to prove myself to you or anybody else.

The site and its controllers are not interested in authenticity i got that from the first time i visited it. Please dont challenge me with contradiction, listen to what the older heads are saying beniton

Paul

I am on the verge of giving up. Trying to reason with you is, sadly, a complete waste of time. You haven't addressed any of the points I raised.

You say that "many ... have a view of the BBC as being a sort of omnipotent being that speaks the truth", are you seriously equating 'omnipotence' with 'truth' in this current simple context? We are not discussing the meaning of life here.

You say "I think the world would be a far better place if people made up their own minds a bit more often". What on earth has this got to do with facts? Using the decimal or any other system, you cannot make up your own mind as to what 1+1 equals. You cannot make up your own mind what the capital of Bulgaria is; you cannot make up your own mind what the speed of light is.

You seem to be implying that you knew full well that a particular story was full of holes, before they were pointed out to you (which I very much doubt), and that this made it even more attractive to you.

You seem to be almost reaching the absurd topsy-turvy conclusion that anyone who tries to correct errors has a closed mind. If this is the case, can you explain why any of us should bother doing research for you? I'm puzzled. More importantly, are you speaking on behalf of the whole BBC WW2 Team here Paul?

Peter

You make me think about a lecture i was invited to attend titled 'The Holacaust', fact or fiction. Even some young people in the audience felt it hard to comprehend what was before their very own eyes. Feeling the gas chambers could have been exaggerated and the figures stroked.

Would you say in this context that it would be better for them to make their own minds up, when we still have first hand knowledge 'the truth' around authenticating what happened.

You certainly are attracted to stories full of holes, i feel you even think that having this open mind of yours is the way forward with history regards beniton

Dear Peter

Firstly, I must apologise - I must have been typing as you were and did not see your post until after I had posted the next one. Hence not addressing your points.

Secondly, no I'm not speaking on behalf of the BBC, I'm giving you my opinion as someone who works on the site, and because I find the topic fascinating and have long wished to debate it without the thread disappearing under malicious postings. Let's hope we can avoid this this time.

My comments about omnipotence were based on the hundreds of emails we get that say things like 'I saw a man in some war footage, what was his name?' as though we can know by some magic means to whom they are referring, or to what footage etc. Also, there are those who feel the BBC should not reproduce submissions by the public because this compromises its position as a trusted source of information. I disagree, but the message that there is a clear distinction between the two different types of content is one that we are clearly failing to communicate.

I do not feel, however, that I am confusing fact and opinion. When I talk of people making up there own mind I am talking about what source to trust. If a two year old tells me that the capital of Bulgaria is Tokyo, I make a decision about the source of the information and decide to what degree I believe it. Is this process not key to historical research?

Your final points are not what I'm saying at all. I did not see the Snowberry story until the discussions started. I certainly now know more about that ship than if these discussions had not taken place. We want the research to take place in the forums, because the process can be seen unfolding. It is always more valuable to see why a fact can be shown to be wrong than just learning it is wrong, in my opinion.

Best wishes

Paul

Dear Beniton

My point is that people need to make up their mind about who to trust for their information. There will, unfortunately, be young people at an event such as you describe, who do not have enough of an understanding of what is a reliable source to believe what they are being told. Holocaust deniers in particular are very clever at using pseudo-science to make their arguments sound more convincing. Learning who to trust is an important lesson and in an ideal world I think watching the forums on this site would help someone to learn that.

I am very surprised that you think my approach is about being open-minded. In fact, it is the opposite. I tend to be very sceptical about which sources I choose to believe, and, as you have pointed out, even the BBC with its tight editorial processes cannot be expected to unfailingly deliver 'the truth'. As more and more information sources emerge, working out who to trust is harder and harder. If a young person can work out why Harry is a good source of information and the lecture you describe is not, then that has to be a good thing, hasn't it?

Best wishes

Paul - WW2 Team

Of all the B.S.I have heard, your reply takes the cake. Go back and read the "Beebs" own concept in the beginning and see how your reply contradicts and demeans the stated purpose of the site. If you had stated "Sorry, we have boobed" it would be bad enough but understandable, instead, like a child caught in the act you fabricate an excuse that certainly no thinking adult could possibly swallow. Are we expecting too much or are there no senior editors who are watching the teams input.By the way, what did you mean when you said "The site is being shown to a large number of people" What is the difference between the day this stupid article was repeated against any other day. As regards your comment about a documentary, this is not valid, you knew this was wrong yet you promulgated it again.

No disrespect to you Paul but your comments make me understand why you work for the BBC and how you have put things together and replied as you have. Cutting your loses and running away quietly might have given you time to re-think, instead you have tried to justify the story as some sort of debate, so that this community might see the story as a new way forward swallowing your reasoning.

Thanks but no thanks, i feel sorry for the genuine lovers of what is right for which i have been drawn to on this site, you have let them down big-time. They can see through your comments i should feel sorry for you because you have fabricated an excuse for the story standing in its present position a front page story regards beniton