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

Dear Paul I too had not seen your Message (M) 13 (nor M.14) before I responded with M.15 At times the internet can be too fast for mere mortals. You explain that "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?' " Be patient with such requests, in several instances, much to my own surprise, I have identified people in just such cases as those (my drinking friends would collapse laughing at any suggestion of omnipotency that might be attributed to me, but it is none-the-less surprising what a little research will uncover). Paul, my friend, are you not twisting and turning a wee bit? Now we have a new one "what sources to trust". Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - and that infinite chain. I am talking about a general consensus of sources. If tomorrow a brilliant researcher, with an IQ through the roof, claimed that she had evidence that Napoleon never existed, I would dismiss such claims out of hand without any discussion. If that is a closed mind, then so be it. For myself, I would conclude that she was deluding herself. We are not talking of two-year-olds, we are talking about what many with accurate first-hand knowledge are telling you. You say that you did not see the Snowberry story until the discussions started. Yet all the criticisms were, and are, attched to it here http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/ww2/F1699637?thread=377837 The story has been considerably altered since it first appeared, initially we were told the ship had no depth-charge launcher and that the crew had to lift and drop them over the side. A quite silly claim when you know that WW2 depth-charges weighed 600 lbs and were dropped 50 meters clear of the ship, for obvious safety reasons, in a pattern of 9 or 10. Before the launchers were installed, they were rolled off the stern from a special ramp. Yet despite all this, and all the corrections, there it appeared on the Front Page. I notice it has now been removed. Why was that? Finally, I do realise that you are not speaking on behalf of the BBC, but I asked, Paul, if you are speaking on behalf of the WW2 Team. Regards, Peter

Dear Peter

In reverse order, if you'll permit me

I enjoy these discussions, which is why I offer my opinion, though I have long ago realised that it only winds people up more! If you look at the team page you will realise that I am quite a minor member of the team, and although I am referred to as a researcher the nature of the project means that far more of my time is spent researching the law on copyright and dealing with support for those who are struggling with their computers than any historical research. But I offer my view of People's War and can also tell you that helping the public to publish their own work is an important part of BBC strategy.

The story was put up on the Front page for a brief period of time to present it to a specific audience. This story was chosen to illustrate the arguments that can break out on the site, and the issues that surround this sort of content. That the BBC does not fact check the stories sent in by its users is key to understanding the nature of this project, and the other community websites that exist at the BBC.

That the story appears on the Front page in no way implies that the team has checked the facts in it. I have put Len Baynes' stories on the Front page of the main history site this weekend, but I have no way of verifying whether what he says happened in Changi is true - I have decided to trust this source, but there is no way I could prove it uncontestably (and certainly not in the afternoon before I posted the page!)

When I said that I did not see the Snowberry article until the discussions started, I was referring to the thread you mention - I hadn't seen it until I saw that discussion taking place.

Like yourself, I personally believe that the contributor of the Snowberry article is a genuine war veteran, though I cannot prove this. I also trust Harry as having experience and formidable knowledge and yourself as a dedicated researcher and god-send to the site, and make my own mind up about the truth of this story. However, this does not make me feel that it is the role of me or the BBC to remove the story. You must remember that anything we do establishes a principle and a precedent that would have to be applied to all stories and this simply not the way that the site works.

It is easy to use the example of Napoleon not existing, but in your research you must have encountered numerous minor facts that are reported differently across sources and you will have made your decision as to which is most likely. If I did not make it clear that I was referring to the process of deciding which sources to trust I apologise - I am not twisting and turning: my beliefs about the site remain the same but I am clearly struggling to express them! A general consensus of sources is the basis of what we accept as history, yet it is always possible that a new viewpoint can trigger new research, in turn leading to a new consensus.

I would love to have the time to research the emails we receive and I try to be as helpful as I can, but this is not the role of the BBC and we would need even more millions of licence fee payers' money if it were! However, if you had read as many as I have you would start to realise that there are people who perceive the BBC as a kind of magical source of knowledge. It may be a large corporation with many resources and archives, but our ability to know what someone's uncle did in the war can only be based on research and access to information like anybody else.

Still, quite why I'm still at work at 9.15 on a Friday night is a mystery, so I shall look forward to reading your comments and criticism on Monday morning...

Best wishes

Paul - WW2 Team

I have never in my life read so much weasly worded garbage. For goodness sake face the facts. Do you honestly believe that a man can throw a 600lb depth charge over the guardrail. Do you believe that a Tommy gun could possibly be used or issued for anti-aircraft defence in a Corvette. Do you believe that the bridge staff had to rely on opera glasses to find the enemy. Do you believe that a Corvette can roll more than 45 degrees safely.Do you believe that the only method of steering a course was a magnetic compass in a newly completed Corvette. These are only a few of the outrageous statements made in the article. Your facetitious excuse that you used the article as an example of how such articles raise interesting debate is pathetic.. This type of debate is an insult to our intelligence. Based on this experience I fully expect to see the article about the wounded veteran from Dunkirk who was sent home on a horse and cart, untreated and his wife removed the bullets from his chest on the kitchen table. He survived and was used to train spies. Surely that qualifies for front page billing based on your criteria.

I honestly believe that he cannot see what is wrong Harry. The staff believe that basic floors in the stories are not an issue. He backs it up by stating the fact that they just havent got the tools for the job. Simple research as it seems is not cost effective, yet they will go to great lengths to get the members photos checked out for copyright and varification to go with their own site or story.

To me it represents one rotten apple in the barrel. They wont even listen to first hand knowledge and information. It sums the BBC up for me. regards beniton

Paul

You say that "The story was put up on the Front page for a brief period of time to present it to a specific audience. This story was chosen to illustrate the arguments that can break out on the site, and the issues that surround this sort of content. That the BBC does not fact check the stories sent in by its users is key to understanding the nature of this project, and the other community websites that exist at the BBC."

'Chosen to illustrate the arguments that can break out'? Where did it say or explain this? Are we now to assume that the Team is detecting howlers that the rest of us missed and that all Front Page stories are put up for us to spot the glaring errors that somehow we missed?

I fully appreciate that the Team cannot, or are not required, to check every story. But where this is done for you, as it has been in many cases, why do you ignore the evidence and explanations proffered? When we have a story, as we have had, of infantry being attacked by Tiger panzers in 1940 in the retreat to Dunkirk, why isn't there an official Team editorial correction when it is pointed out to you that the Tiger only went into production in August 1942? Such corrections would in no way impugn the general veracity of such a story.

As for 'arguments that can break out', I have repeatedly tried to explain that 'argument' is the wrong word when facts are involved. I seem to be doing this badly because clearly I am not getting across what I mean. Let me give a few more examples: we can argue about the decision to invade Sicily; we can argue about the quality of NAAFI tea; we can argue about the fighting effectiveness of the Red Army; and so on. But we cannot debate or argue about the distance from Le Havre to Arnhem, for that we simply consult a map. That settles the matter and there is no room for debate. It is a question of fact. Similarly we do not debate the effectiveness of a tommy-gun (more fully, the Thompson M 1928A1) against aircraft. Aside from tommy-guns and sten-guns being notoriously inaccurate, both have neither the range nor stopping power to engage an aircraft. Whilst both were invaluable for close-combat house clearance, they are of little or no use whatsoever against tanks, armoured cars, or aircraft, or even against an unarmed man much beyond 600 yards. On a rolling ship, in the confines of the bridge, they would probably be of more danger to the crew than to the enemy.

You say "That the story appears on the Front page in no way implies that the team has checked the facts in it. I have put Len Baynes' stories on the Front page of the main history site this weekend, but I have no way of verifying whether what he says happened in Changi is true - I have decided to trust this source, but there is no way I could prove it uncontestably".

'I have decided to trust this source'? Why single out this example when in fact you have clearly decided to trust all sources regardless of content? If that is not the case, can you tell us how many you decided could not be trusted?

You say that "It is easy to use the example of Napoleon not existing, but in your research you must have encountered numerous minor facts that are reported differently across sources and you will have made your decision as to which is most likely".

Well, no Paul, I haven't really, that is simply not how research works. You do not lay out differing 'facts' and spin a coin. What we encounter is differing interpretations of facts, and that is quite different from cherry-picking them. One source may say that the Russian T-34 tank was superior because of its extra wide tracks, giving it mobility in mud and snow. Another may say it was because of the sloping front and high speed. I may differ and make up my own mind by taking other factors into account, but all of us would be drawing our individual conclusions from established facts. The specifications of the T-34 are not subject to debate or argument. If someone interjected and claimed that the T-34 had narrow tracks and a low speed he would be laughed out of court. Incidentally, I gave the example of Napoleon because one sure way of testing the validity of an assertion is to test it to extremes.

As it stands, you seem to be defending the indefensible. I quite understand that for logistic and other reasons all submissions will go into the archive unedited, but I honestly thought that those highlighted on the Front Page were special. I expected you to take our warnings of errors light-heartedly but seriously when a flawed story slipped through, in this I was clearly wrong.

Regards,

Peter

But it isn't just the submissions by the public that remain uncorrected. There are also the short articles by experts and the WW2 Peoples War Team which also remain uncorrected when errors are pointed out, errors that don't need expert confirmation, but which could be quickly checked and corrected in minutes. Take "Theatre of War: Italy, Greece and the Balkans" here A1062947 as an example. Aside from the most obvious fault of not containing a single line about the war in Italy, there are other errors which I pointed out way back in November 2003, shortly after I joined. Look at these extracts: " The Germans ... invaded southern Yugoslavia and Greece. ... Large parts of Yugoslavia were occupied by German forces, while Greece was occupied by the Italians." A very quick check will show you that the German main invasion of nearly half a million men was over the former Austrian border, Yugoslavia's northernmost point. The southern invasion was by a combined force of Germans and Bulgarians, and apart from First Panzer Group, was directed at Greece. As to the occupation, it is simply not the case that "Large parts of Yugoslavia were occupied by German forces, while Greece was occupied by the Italians." as I explained here http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/ww2/F125844?thread=352062, which in your article could be simplified to: "In Yugoslavia, Germany annexed a large area in the north and occupied the core of Serbia, the Italians occupied the rest. In Greece, Germany, Italy, and Bulgaria divided the country into three zones of occupation". If it is left as it is, then presumably those interested can read both accounts and then make up their own minds - whether to believe the BBC or a voluntary researcher. No prizes for guessing who will carry more weight. Peter

I think the team have closed ranks. They are fully aware of the truth of our observations but, apparantly to admit it and, in future ensure it does not occur would be too embarrassing. There has not been one reply from any of them that has truly addressed the problem. They appear to be content to sit on their pinnacle and blow down on us lesser mortals. I would really give a great deal to be able to go over their heads and talk to a senior impartial editor. It bothers me greatly because I am now among the very few remaining who was there and would like future readers to share our experiences without lies, exaggerations, fabrications. We all recognise that two or more people can describe incidents differently but we must also recognise that stories such as Snowberry with it's glaring factual inaccuracies (and there are many other inputs equally guilty) cast a grave doubt on the authenticity of every input.If this situation is not going to be corrected I suggest the web site has failed and should be cancelled to avoid promulgating lies, fabrications and exaggerations on our unsuspecting children, grandchildren and in my case great grandchildren.

Paul
You certainly put the cat among the pigeons with this one.
I do understand some of your argument; many people still believe that if it is a BBC article posting or film it is written in stone. There are those who will think everything on this site because you have allowed it to be seen by the general viewer is gospel.
Memory does strange things and some of us do get our basic facts out of sequence at times, it is one of the penalties of growing old.
Experience counts in some things as Peter pointed out and I can verify a Sten gun was useless at distance but wonderful at 50 yards, again experience told you that get your little pinky anywhere near the breach opening whilst firing the thing which was quite easy to do, you lost the end of it.
Arguments about a model of tank vehicle ship or plane can be verified by looking it up in the many books available.
The fact you lifted a 600lb depth charge over the rail while rolling at 45 defrees not only sounds more in the realms of never land but is.
This was put on front page and those people who just take it for granted the BBC are omnipotent digest it and believe.
There are many ways of starting meaningful discussion and posting spurious stories is not one of them.
Why not pick out a series of similar stories, post them on a specific page and ask for comments from those interested enough and not total believers to reply.
Peter and I have had our own discussions on History as written. I think it is being rewritten as we go by new facts being brought to light through various means, but meanwhile we have what is already written as our only guide to truth. If a person blatantly angles that truth towards fiction with just enough fact to strike a chord in the reader then it should not be highlighted.
That to me Paul is what the Staff should be doing, a quick viewing of new stories and any that look iffy be put on a site where the thoughts of the researchers could be brought to bear on it.
meanwhile keep at it I love a good old Irish hoo ha.
Regards Frank.

Hi Frank. It looks like we are back to Omar Khayem's quote "The Doctors and the Saints had great argument but left by the same door as in they went".The team are totally impervious to any input that points out factual error etc. I am back to my original suggestion made in the beginning. All inputs should bear a proper and accurate name of the person writing not a non de plume. Their address should be supplied to the team but not published. This is standard practice in "Letters to the Editor". The result would be shattering at first. Imagine what friends and neighbours would say to the author of Snowberry or to the kitchen table operation etc etc.It would cut the input down to manageable proportions. Is it too much to ask any member of the team to respond to this and give an answer that makes sense.

Hi Harry
I'll drink to that!
Best wishes
Ron

Harry,
I could not agree more but suspect the Staff leave such spurious items in to cause the discussions they seem to crave.
That will not mollify people who know the true facts and will probably stir us into reaching for the bait.
I love Kipling.
Regards Frank.