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

This is the network that brings us "Queer As Folk", and they tell us to mind our *English* language and be careful to not offend? So BBC's telling us we cannot discuss their programming, or they will ban and censor us for saying Naughty Things if people complain.

Right. I thought so.

People can complain to the BBC about the content of their shows and network officials say, in so many words, "sod off, our viewers like it". On the other hand anyone in here can pretend offense, click on that horrible little green "O" thing and get a contributor booted from this community according to vaguely defined standards of decency.

Yup.

I hope these changes were done without Mr. Adams' consent -- I cannot imagine him sanctioning this level of hypocrisy. And how much work has this body of users now contributed in good faith to the guide, only to have it held at the mercy of BBC censors?



-THDoM

P.S. There's more than one language on Earth. How can a guide to Earth be presented in only one language? I guess I am just disillusioned, I really thought the guide was going to mean something, instead the BBC reveals its new vision: marketing gimmick.

The wheels of justice grind slowly, but the wheel is still in spin.

Yes, I do
It destroys everything this is supposed to be well not quite but we should be able to say absolutely anything we want.
Why does BBC care anyway? I'm sure that the majority of people on the net don't mind the occasional *Naughty Word*.

Yes. I do.

I don't like the negative tone of the message as it seems to put too much emphasis on the Linda button.

"If you see anything on this page that breaks the site's House Rules, please click on the relevant button. h2g2 contains content that is generated by visitors to the site, and the contents of this page may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC, unless specifically stated. Please note that the BBC is not responsible for the contents of any external sites referenced."

IMO A better wording would be...

"The majority of content on h2g2 is generated by the researchers, who are members of the public at large. The views expressed are theirs and not those of the BBC, unless specifically stated. The BBC is not responsible for the content of any external sites referenced.
In the event that you consider anything on this page to be in breach of the site's House Rules, please click on the relevant button, to alert our moderation team."

Surely Queer As Folk is a Channel 4 programme? Or was that the point?

Also, the Yikes/Linda button isn't automated. You can't get chucked off h2g2 just 'cos some goit clicks the button without good reason.

I'm not particularly upset about the house rules but I do miss the chatty informal nature they had on the old site, I'm sure researchers would be happier with the content if it's phrased nicely

I also agree with Bald Bloke's suggestion to a rewording though I'm not sure whether that will have too much of an effect on missing items. The majority of complaints about things being taken down are from items that are moderated directly rather than referred via Yikes!

AFAIK the BBC didn't Produce "Queer as Folk" - it was an independent production team for Channel4 (I think there is a guide entry somewhere). Also if there is any programming/conduct you disagree with, you can complain to the television complaints commission, their Consumer affairs Programme 'Watchdog' has been censured several times for example, not to mention Room 101 after the Welsh were put in (Hmmm an Anne Robinson connection, perhaps she is the weakest link??? - Sorry bad joke). As there is no official regulatory body on the internet, the BBC has a right to be more careful. The moderation system is just more direct and rapid acting than the RL comparisions as it has to be with the speed things act on the net.

The problem they are trying to get around is not the majority of people that use the net, but the minority that do find it offensive and those trying to 'protect' their children's innocence. The online BBC is one of the most used information resources on the net and has to be seen to cater to everybody, that means it needs to be accessible to the lowest common denominator. I personally have seen 9 and 10 year-olds registered to this site, and I'm sure more have visited it for information. Some of the content really cannot be seen as suitable for them. And don't claim it's entirely up to the parents to let then in and watch what they read, it can be a little difficult with forum titles and contents differing within the thread, once they've clicked on the link, it's a little hard to stop them reading it .

In the main the rules and regs are not stopping you saying things, just making sure the way you say them is acceptable.

As for copyright infringement, that has always been and banned they are just cracking down on things now. Plagiarism really should not be encouraged and this at least gets people into good habits for writing in general. Perhaps a good idea would be to have moderation feedback, so people know what they've done wrong and could have the chance to change it, that may come after a while.

It's just a matter of time before the other languages are supported again, surely you can live with an English version for a few months? It's only until they can hire moderating staff that can speak other languages. I admit that I probably wouldn't like having to make all my postings in, for example, German and if I was told that the site was not accepting English I'd probably leave for a while. I don't know whether I'd feel unwanted or insulted, but i know I wouldn't feel as if I was fitting in as best as I can (I certainly wouldn't be making posts as long as this one ).

Okay, okay, rant over.

If you really and truly feel offended by the way the House Rules are phrased why not Yikes! them; that's what it's there for.

The Linda button in the disclaimer doesn't work

Nice try.

You can, however go to the house rules page and complain at the click here link

You could always stage a protest by clicking on every single Linda button on the whole site (or writing a program that does the same thing), thereby leaving the BBC with a clear choice between shutting the site down or loosening their grip...

Or throwing you out. Abuse of the system can lead to them revoking your access, it's all explained in the House Rules, you need a valid reason for wanting to complain about something.

Besides the Yikes button doesn't actually automatically remove the posting, and you have to put a reason for wanting the item removed.

DE
Certainly changing the words does not change the BBC policy, only long and persistant lobbying, by the Italics backed by the rest of us, is likly to do that.

My objection to the existing words is based on the oppressive feel they give to the site ("negative vibes man"), I think it's important because the disclaimer is seen on every page and forum throughout the site, its probably one of the first things a new vistor would notice. what message does it give to them?

With regard to youngsters reading this site,
My view is that if parents don't consider their child is ready to be let loose unsupervised onto the internet, then it's down to them to restrict the access, rather than sites to change their rules.

The rules on this site have always been clear, and in the past the powers have taken action when things have strayed over the line, so with regard to site content I don't think there is a problem, some of the articles and discussions may cause the youngsters to ask questions which perhaps their parents are not yet ready to answer, but thats a matter of parental embarressment, not child protection.
In most cases younger children are not interested in those subjects (yet) and will ignore the article / discussion as "boring".

With regard to other languages, moderator support for them is desparatly needed, it would be a real shame to lose researchers who don't use english as their first language, I feel they add a lot to the guide.

My main problem with the current rules is the ban on external links in forums.
I feel it breaks my rules of nettiquette (and I suspect a lot of other peoples)

The vast majority of what we write is based on information we have gained from elsewhere.
I belive that if you are using information you should give the reader the option of looking it up for themselves.

In a forum
If I get information from a newspaper, book, film, TV programme etc I can quote its title and even identify the relevent article snippet or what ever.
However if I get it from a website (other than a BBC one) I can't.

I don't find the "solution" of putting a link on my homepage acceptable because that link is only relevent to a small number of postings in one forum.

The BBC websites are frequently referenced in this way all the way across the net, which is one of the reasons the sites get such a huge number of vistors.
h2g2 itself gets a suprisingly large number of references in this way, which no doubt accounts for some of the continuing influx of new researchers.

So it strikes me that to restrict links going the other way in this manner, is going against the spirt of the web (after all the whole thing is based on links) and in my opinion is out of order (to put it politly)

I kind of got the wrong end of the stick there, oops. People are complaining about the disclaimer at the bottom of every page rather than the house rules themselves.

I don't find the disclaimer itself particularly offensive though it is depressing (would a change of wording and colour help? Cosmetics can have an effect on mood "positive vibes" perhaps ).

Note. The BBC isn't changing it's rules, H2G2 has to because it has been/being assimilated into a larger site, it is the same with any organisation that is subject of a takeover, the rules are subtley different and one side has to change. They're doing a pretty good job of keeping it as close to the original idea as possible, at least not everything is strictly edited, we don't have to be employees of the BBC - It could have happened with an Official Guide.

I regret that other languages are not supported and echo your request that it's fixed as soon as possible. I would like as many people as possible to get as much out of the site as I do and it's a pity that researchers may be turned away by that policy.

I do agree that the external website in forums policy would be better if changed back to the original. Your arguments in favour are pretty persuasive. I hope the Italics are as convinced. The disclaimer does mention external sites anyway but there is no way to list them in the forums at present.

Perhaps a compromise. When visiting a site from my hotmail email account I get a pop-up browser window with "You are visiting a site outside Hotmail" banner across the top of my browser. Could something similar be done for URLs in forums, including the disclaimer if necessary? Could the moderators the check the websites for acceptability and allow them in if they meet certain criteria?

Something else for the next site re-design

I agree with Bald Bloke on the exclusion of URLs. I think this is the most offensive bit of "House Rules." It stifles conversation. I have little qualm with the "moderating" of offensive language as that would never apply to me. I don't think it is necessary to use foul language to make a point. In fact, foul language is dull and lazy. I do think the use of * to mask words is silly. It only draws attention. If BBC is going to censor, they should just remove the whole word, but I suspect that is too blatantly censorship.

I am happy to see h2g2 back. Very happy. Just hope there is some serious consideration given to allowing URLs in posts.

Addendum: Not allowing languages other than English is rather disturbing, too. I understand it, sort of, but I don't like it.

DE

You can post the link, it just doesn't last very long once the moderators get their hands on it

The BBC policy apparently is that all external links must be checked regularly to ensure they are still valid and the content hasn't changed to something unsuitable.

I suspect that the present no external links in forums rule is done to keep down the number of pages of things to check.

When I left a note on Jims page about the same subject I suggested creating a database of external links so that they could be automatically checked for changes by caching a copy of the page and comparing it or keeping a CRC or similar.

In doing that they could also introduce a list of "trusted sites"
ie sites which are under editorial control similar to this one.

I'm thinks of sites such as those run by the major newspapers etc.

I like the idea from hotmail
Since all external links now open in a separate window, there could be a loading page saying "you are now leaving controlled air space please fasten your seat belt, then click here to continue"

Well, it isn't just URLs in Postings. I am so upset about the arbitary way the Moderators have been behaving that I put a link to Amnesty's donations page on my HOME PAGE... which has been removed...

This leaves me completely speechless...

This whole thing of deleted posts, and removed home pages has taken all of the fun out of the guide for me. I'll hang around for a while but if I don't see signs of improvement, I'll go, leaving nothing but an email address, and a description of the link to Amnesty behind me...

I should clarify the last post - they removed my home page AND the link - the home page *should* be back now, minus link....

Ben
At the moment the moderators are being consistant only in their inconsistancy

I guess this is because they are as unsure of what the rules mean as we are

I can't see whats wrong with a link to a registered charity like Amnesty either, I suggest you refer it to Peta and Abi via the moderation feedback page.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/Moderation-HelpDesk


And I will Laugh if that link gets taken out.