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

JODAN = Reply to post 1063

I really do not think I am being silly, if the article has been plagiarised then sure it deserves to be removed...

I am not complaining about that, what galls me is that once again the proper procedures have not been followed, this I feel is totally unnaceptable. TBTB need to use the proper procedures if we are to have any confidence in them me thinks.

No, you are being . What is the proper procedure? If the italics believe an article is plagiarized, do they have to announce this? No.

There is no proper procedure. If the mods find out any entry is plagiarized, they hide it. The italics get involved in EG entries that need to be hidden,

Ok, the promised update...

I've been in contact with the editors and yes, the entry was pulled due to copyright infringement...

Now, as to whether it should have been moderated or removed completely, well... (and the following is my personal opinion)

The edited entry - Couldn't be edited so had to go
The original version (Halitrope's) - The author(!) had long since done an elvis so there's not much difference there.
My unedited version - it was already on my deleted entry list (type=3) entries so not much difference there to anyone else apart from me! It wasn't my original work, so there's no way I would have completely re-written it and to be honest, can you just re-write an entry to avoid plagiarism... wouldn't it have been better to start afresh).




Last but not least... and this is the good bit...

This didn't all take place last Friday...

The entries were deleted in...





wait for it...









September 2002!

We (me most of all!) are an observant bunch aren't we?

It's been a year and no one has noticed until now? Pick a better title next time

Well I did point out in post 1008 that we had no evidence it was removed last Friday. However, was it a Friday back in September 2002 Whisky, or didn't they tell you?

It seems from post 998 that Jodan spotted it via C782 in the category system. So there *is* a bit of procedure which wasn't followed properly. That was in failing to remove it fully from Edited Guide status, eg in the category links. The count of EG articles is probably very inaccurate with all the deleted articles which haven't been properly downgraded. The BBC/h2g2 certainly shouldn't be advertising articles which it doesn't have.

Sorry to be a bit of a grump here but... (hears a chorus of smileys)

... but when I clicked on the link it said the page had been deleted at the request of the author.

This means as far as I am concerned two things have not been done properly:-

I) As far as I am aware it is not true that the author removed it
II) A Whole year of being removed and Whisky was NOT INFORMED. What kind of proper procedure is that i ask you?

Look it wasn't my entry, eveidently it did not form that much of an
important part of the guide if no one had noticed it was gone for a year and sure it needed to go as it was plagiarised. BUT I still feel things have once again not been done in the right was and that annoys me damn it.

To quote Walter from "The Big Lebowski"... "Does no one give a damn about the rules anymore!"

If it was removed for a breach of copyright, for all you know, the 'author' was the one who complained. So the message could be correct.

By the way, maybe Whisky (or whoever was in the 'Edited by') slot *did* get an email, but has since forgotten as it was a long time ago?

Though I'd agree with the second point, as far as the first point is concerned, since from the earlier parts of this thread it seems to be the case that it's only recently that anyone has noticed and complained about the incorrectness of the automated 'removed by the author' problem, it isn't really *another* instance of the misdescription-of-deletion problem, it's just a not very surprising earlier case that no-one seemed to notice until now. The real issue regarding the first point is whether the 'deleted by author' problem happens again now TPTB are aware of the feelings on the issue.

Oh that's a bit spurious, Mina, it still wouldn't have been 'deleted' by the original author, would it? Surely it should say "this entry has been hidden becuase it broke the house rules in some way".

Kerr that is exactly what I was getting at.

That's what the Moderation message already says. If the person with editorial control then decides to delete it, that's out of the Editors control.

I was trying to check to see if I'd put in a feature suggestion to change the automatic wording on deleted emails, but email has just gone down, so it will have to wait. I can't see it on the page on site.

Just read that again - when an Edited Guide entry is deleted, control is given to the h2g2 Editors account, and it is deleted as that version 'belongs' the the BBC. There's not much point keeping a moderated Edited Guide entry.

Just found the email.

I put in a request that 'by the author' is dropped from that standard text at the beginning of August. Until h2g2 gets some development in that area there's nothing that can be done about it.

Just a wee thing, you might want to think about keeping the Edited Guide Entries hidden rather than delete them, even if they are moderated. Due to changes in Editorial Policy things that have to be hidden now, may be viewable in the future. In this case it may not happen as plagarism isn't something h2g2 should be associated with, but some of the other Enties discussed in this thread should be kept for the bright future Well, just a £0.02 thrown in the mix Until later....
BCNU - Crescent

Don't forget that using the delete button doesn't remove the content. It's still there, just hidden.

Ok, for this particular case...

SEF: "Well I did point out in post 1008 that we had no evidence it was removed last Friday"

Response: Smartalec (I'm joking, I'm joking )



Ferretbadger:
I) As far as I am aware it is not true that the author removed it

Mina answered you there, ok, it's a little bit of a cop out, but theoretically the author probably did ask for it to be removed... unfortunately that author isn't who it appears to be (eating humble pie here)

"II) A Whole year of being removed and Whisky was NOT INFORMED. What kind of proper procedure is that i ask you"

Erm, to be honest I no longer have e-mails from h2g2 going back that far (Hotmail inboxes are only soo large you know - I don't think I did get a mail but after a year without noticing it was missing firstly I can't prove it, secondly I can hardly get irate over something I needed to have pointed out to me a year after the event.



I think the most important thing here is that the feature suggestion has been made for a change in the wording of the replacement text... hopefully this problem shouldn't happen again.



My final opinion... of the three entries in existance with various versions of the text...
---
The edited version _had_ to be deleted (as previously stated) - ok, so the links might still exist, but that's more of the sort of problem I'd expect to see posted in bug reports or technical feedback - it's just housekeeping problems.
---
My version _was already_ deleted... Now what should the process be for that one Should the editors drag back an entry that is invisible to all but me and tell me to change it?
What would my response be...

There's two sides to that I suppose...

One the one hand it's been deleted, therefore I've made it clear don't want it, therefore it's just clogging up server space so delete it permanently! (let's face it, it's a nice little feature being able to undelete entries, but if the editors were to turn around tomorrow and say that they're changing the system to save server space and you'd only be able to undelete your articles for a period of 6 months after the initial deletion then I very much doubt anyone would complain (unless of course they were _really_ bent on causing an arguement!).

On the other hand, the text is physically still on the server, practically it can't be re-worded to avoid the plagiarism issue, so, the editors have to drag up an entry I'd got rid of, moderate it so I've a moderated entry on my space (not the best way of making my day as you might have guessed) and force me to do something about it... What am I going to do unless I want to completely re-write a new article on the subject? I'm going to delete it and then swear at the italics for giving me extra work to do when I could be annoying people in PR or something equally useless .
---
As for the original version... The 'author' is absent, if it were moderated it would just remain moderated for ever, so why not delete it and get it off the site completely.

With hindsight, I think they made the right call on this one (and I think I'll be a little more careful around the fleamarket the next time )

Slightly out of date now but I was searching for entrys and I noticed that the Camcorder Entry still comes up on a search. As we have already established that it does not break the house rules I wonder how iits continued presence can be squared with the refusal to allow it in the EG.

Not that I want it to be deleted but if the content is so offensive to editoral policy why are they happy for it to remain on hootoo where anybody can read it just by searching?