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

1. Information
We don't know anything very much about traffic, active user numbers, the size of the database etc etc. We also don't know how the 'disposal' process would work. I'd regard it as unlikely that the BBC would be trying to 'sell' the site - much more likely is the process will be about handing over to the right people. Until we know these things, there's little more that can be done.

2. An audit of what the 'community' doesn't already do for the site, or which can't easily be replicated.
Where do we need to step in to take over from Auntie Beeb. Well, peer review could become entirely 'peer'. The big issue here seems to me to be moderation and decisions about moderation, which requires another volunteer group. We have an excellent community in terms of 'self-moderation' and civility, but we're going to have to police ourselves. That's fraught with danger, because nothing seems to annoy people quite like moderation decisions, and (more seriously) pre-mods and banning. This is bad enough when there's a more or less neutral referee, but when it's identifiable individuals making the final decisions who are *of* the community, rather than 'above it', it has the potential to get messy. I wasn't around pre-BBC. What happened then, and what can we learn? Didn't there used to be an agreed procedure for 'disciplinary' action?
Other areas we had covered for us are the legal side, and also child protection and other kinds of protection/pastoral issues.

3. Where are we going?
I guess my view is that the edited guide should be going back towards being unconventional, which means being more about personal experiences, rather than an encyclopaedia. More of a magazine approach. A kind of merger of guide and post?
Do we stay family friendly, or do we censor less in terms of views and in terms of language?

4. Researcher numbers. How can we (a) take as many with us as possible; (b) lure people back; (c) lure new people in.

5. A 'business mode', and a 'governance model'. It's great that there's ideas for raising funds (advertising, 'freemium', donations, memorabilia, licensing etc etc etc). Until we know the likely running costs, there's little we can do except collect ideas. However, we can think about governance. There's nothing like money to poison and spoil things, and we need to be alive to those dangers. Money has to be brought in, and it has to be spent. There needs to be transparency before people will donate. Money makes everything much more 'real' than it ever has been before. All it takes is one or two malcontents to start throwing slander around about income and money, and there's the potential for a whole heap of trouble. I hope I'm not a pessimist for dreaming up nightmare scenarios, but....

6. Engagement with the rest of the web
One of the great weaknesses has been lack of visibility of guide entries to the rest of the web. So... how joined up do we want to be? Do we want to keep relative anonymity, or do we want to link to 'real' identities through facebook, twitter, blogs etc? Or do we want both options - certainly I think we do.

Great ideas. I think we need to get these draft documents together. I'll bash out my ideas later on.

It's good to get down to the nitty-gritty about this. Thanks for that post, Otto.

I'd be inclined to leave point three - what the nature of the Guide should be - out of it for now. There's going to be an awful lot that needs to be done in this changeover process - so I'd suggest we leave that for now. It will no doubt arise during the whole process - but I think it's best to leave the nature of the Guide as presently stated until we move this process further on. There are so many practicalities to deal with just now, and we can't do everything at once.

I don't see any harm in discussing the nature of the guide whilst we are sorting out the nitty gritty of which servers to use. People want to know what they're getting involved in, they will NEED to know what they are donating to, if we are asking for donations.

We can not all contribute to the techy stuff, but if we can contribute to the vision of what we are doing then that will be a valuable thing.

We can write a constition right now, we do not need the BBC to give us stats and stuff to work out how we could run the idea site.

It's just that I've witnessed these discussions about what should and shouldn't be allowed in the Guide before, and they can easily become quite acrimonious and destructive. I think that the guide will evolve organically, but right now we need to build the walls before choosing the wallpaper, if you see what I mean.

So would I, but here comes that first disagreement - I think that the nature of what h2g2 is and what we want it to be will decide whether or not it can survive financially and may well impact it from a technical standpoint.

If it's to be a portable travel guide, that needs one way of marketing/financing/building. If it's to be a fun, original encyclopedia, then that needs to be something else. The tools will need to fit the job, if you're with me.

Like you, I've seen a lot of destructive conversations about this, and I have no wish to see them again. Unfortunately they will have to happen some time, but hopefully positive ones without anger and finger-pointing.

I was more thinking the structure of 'how' we make decisions.

I've been thinking that it should go like this.

Such as an editor who decides on the guide, and an Community Editor and 12 ' Steering committee members' will be elected by 'voting members'. I think that sub-eds should be able to put stuff in the guide without a direct approval of the editor, but the editor should approve picks.

To become a voting member you make a small donation, or write an entry for the guide, or join one of the volunteer schemes.

Um. Don't like it. But I can't put my finger on why. I'll have a think.

I think that's really getting ahead of ourselves, Vip.

What we probably need now is a lot more information. I'm hoping that the BBC will feel able to be a lot more candid and open about facts and figures than they were when it seemed like remaining a BBC site for the foreseeable future. Right now, it feels like we're fumbling in the dark, and it's hard to get a picture of where we need to go just yet.

Ho yus. I still think it more likely that the BBC will see if they can sell the site rather than giving it to us. We just don't know enough to really focus on stuff. It's hard not to think about it though!

"We don't know anything very much about traffic, active user numbers, the size of the database etc etc."

Excellently, this was item 1 on Otto's list.

Personally, that's where my list would have ended. Without that information, everything else is entirely academic, because we have no idea of either
(a) the size of the undertaking required to allow to the site to continue in a vaguely recognisable form or
(b) whether it's "worth it".

If the entire database would fit on £200-worth of RAID, and we've got massive lurker traffic - we're good.

If there's more hardware to it than that and this place is a talking shop for fewer people you'd find on a single Tube train at rush hour (possible) - well, we're not so good.

We need to get info point 1 out of the Beeb before we even think about anything else.

I'm wary of arrangements that enable people to buy a vote.

I'd agree with that. Without this information we can't go much further.

I've said this in other places but.

We need to know where we stand with the edited entries, can we have them if we do move or do the BBC have them and we have to start all over again

As we have members all over the world and the site is in use 24/7 we'll need at least one person from all corners of the world on the 'Comittee', Moderator and Techie people especially, it's no good having the Server in Europe and the only person who can maintain it in New Zealand.

We will need funding, small donations will be ok to maintain the site but setting it up can be expensive, selling advertising space and products will help, I know it's not to everyone's taste but what's more important, keeping h2g2 going or some ruffled principles?

Will there be an age limit? or will there be a system like they have on Live Journal that you can put a 'May contain explicit Material' age flag on your PS.

Softening the EG rules and making it easier to get through PR might help bring in new members and bring old one's back, I know a fair few that have left because of PR and not being able to post fiction in places other than The Post.

Sorry to be so boringly practical

about the Entries: what *we* have written is ours, so we can take it with us to wherever we go. This will let us keep a lot, even if the BBC doesn't give us the rest.

It's always an idea to ask first, we don't want to ruffle feathers if we can help it, the last thing we want is for someone to shoot off at the mouth and the BBC to say "Well in that case we'll keep the entire contents" Moving of goalposts isn't unheard of

Where it might get tricky is that while the authors retain copyright, and have granted BBC permission to use the content, they haven't agreed to any terms and conditions with the new h2g2 consortium granting them the same permission.

This site was Ruperted once, can't see any reason why it can't be again. Some content was lost last time. Some content might well be lost this time. But the site endured, and could again.

But... I reiterate, Otto's point 1 MUST be answered before anything else is even worth talking about.

It would be interesting to know how many Edited Entries (or percentage) have been written by people who are not here anymore. Or at n2g2 where they are still in reach. (because of the copyright)

Doubt whether you;d get the informaiton even via an FOI request...it would be considered as 'commercially' sensitive information I would bet.