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

Is anyone else out there a little... put out by the state of their converted "pre-BBC" h2g2 account? Can't help but notice that all of my pages are shut down pending moderation and that all external URLs seem to have been disabled, which means no pictures. At all.

I'm having a little difficulty seeing just how h2g2 has improved since being picked up by the BBC. In fact, h2g2 seems to be rather lacking its original spirit.

For god's sake (can I say that anymore?), they've shut down my weevil church pages. Is nothing sacred?

If I don't get my pictures back, I'm out of here.

Hello Nick. Is it true? Have they really shut down the CotTW? I have just rejoined after the interregnum and I am a little shocked at the extent of the 'moderation'. Having said that I would not be surprised if one of the reasons for the overhaul of H2G2 was not that it was beginning to be excluded by all of the commercial firewalls. I cannot really see how any less intrusive 'moderation' would solve the problem of people putting in URLs to very (in my opinion) tacky material. Best regards to Kensington.

Hiya. They haven't shut down the CotTW, actually. They've hidden it all pending moderation, which I suppose they'll get around to in a couple of years or so.

Rather upsetting that the Church of the True Brownie has been up and running for several days now, whilst my church pages languish in some database limbo.

All in all, I think the BBC has pretty much destroyed the soul and spirit of what was one of the best and brightest communities on the web, and I absolutely hate them for it.

helo prcopus its me kensinton thak you for the regrds im fin but nick is vari unhapi with a bbc or somthng ok by

Well, you can reactivate your entries the same way you reactivated your personal space. Edit and update. That's it!

Oh. Oops. Funny that I complained about that on another forum but nobody mentioned that to me.

Hello there NO'T,

My page was very basic with not a lot on it, but I can certainly understand the annoyance and frustration from those with whizzy jolly pages that have been desolated.

I had the same initial impression regarding the 'improvement' of the site now that Auntie Beeb stumps up the cash... I shall wait, though, and see if things improve and see just how retentive the rules become...

My commiserations on your page and links. Have a

Quite possibly the only spirit here at the moment...

~LW~

I have just one question....who are these censors and who taught them not to have a sense of humor?...is there a special humor removal laboratory where burecratic types go to be reprogrammed?
I was playing the song link game at Orcus's space, when for no personal reason....I was edited. I live in Texas, and refered to my beloved husband as a Redneck. In Texas, this is not considered a political term, but one of endearment and classification. Rednecks are often the blue collared, hard working 9 to 5 guys who get the job done without glamour or fanfare. Yet, for some reason, my comments were edited. I wish I could see the criteria list for censoring, I would find it facinating.
Anne of a Thousand Days

I have just one question....who are these censors and who taught them not to have a sense of humor?...is there a special humor removal laboratory where burecratic types go to be reprogrammed?
I was playing the song link game at Orcus's space, when for no personal reason....I was edited. I live in Texas, and refered to my beloved husband as a Redneck. In Texas, this is not considered a political term, but one of endearment and classification. Rednecks are often the blue collared, hard working 9 to 5 guys who get the job done without glamour or fanfare. Yet, for some reason, my comments were edited. I wish I could see the criteria list for censoring, I would find it facinating.
Anne of a Thousand Days

Hello, LW and Anne. Thanks for visting my page, such as it is at the moment.

LW, this whole picture thing particularly bothers me because most of the artwork on my home page came from [URL Removed by Moderator], at a time when they had a bunch of free artwork that anyone was allowed to download and use. When I used their artwork, I referenced it from my own web site, not theirs. When I used artwork from other sites (for my weevil pages), I first checked the site for any copyright messages regarding the artwork on the site before using it.

In any event, the real problem is the proactive nature in which external content is censored: guilty until proven innocent. I don't see the problem with someone saying, "Hey that's my artwork, take it off your site immediately!", to which h2g2 replies, "OK", and then they remove the artwork. What the hell is wrong with that? It worked for h2g2 up to this point.

Anne, the censors in this case are the moderators who lurk behind the scenes and censor everything for content. Currently, this includes language, and I don't mean just obscenities. Until further notice, we are restricted to the use of the English language only. In fact, I think we're restricted to UK English specifically. Your use of the word "redneck" _could_ be considered a derogatory remark, and therefore it was censored. I'm not sure if my usage of the word in the previous sentence will be edited; perhaps not, as I'm not actually using it in any context. Guess we'll find out once the censors are done with this post.

Now, you can't blame the censors because they're just doing their job according to the rediculous policies set forth by the evil yet strangely paranoid BBC empire. As for the English vs UK language thing, I'm wondering about certain cultural aspects of this language policy. For example, take the word "c**t" (I've edited it out myself as I can't even bring myself to type it). In the UK that word seems to be bandied about all the time, whereas here in Canada (and probably the US), it is a _very_ naughty word indeed, possibly even more so than "f**k" (which I've also edited myself).

However, the word "shag" (which I haven't edited out) has the same meaning in North America and the UK, but in North America it is a completely harmless word. You can even use it in movie titles without offending anyone, like the second Austin Powers movie (called "The Spy Who Shagged Me" in North America - nobody so much as raised an eyebrow over that title).

I have a feeling that the word "shag" will be edited out of this post of mine, but I'm not sure. Perhaps it won't since I'm using it primarily in a clinical context rather than a derogatory one. Guess we'll find out soon enough...

Please take a quick tour of the song title game, and you will see the censorship is worse than when I wrote you last. I think that whoever is in this job has decided to make up for years of sexual repression through the the silencing of others!
I know that the British are notoriously structured in their lifestyles....but y'all take this to new levels with this censorship program. I hope that I am not the only one nagry....in the USof A, we have a little something called the First Amendment....it preserves the right to free expression....an oxymoron in this enviroment.
Anne of a Thousand days

You really can't blame the people doing the censoring. They're just doing their job, which is enforcing the BBC's policies. The BBC is the real culprit here. The BBC seems to fear potential lawsuits beyond all reason and, in my opinion and despite what they say, have not one inkling of what it what they acquired when they picked up h2g2. In my opinion, h2g2 is just another "product" to the BBC, and they don't see how the product could be affected simply by blocking all external URLs.

If I'm correct, then the BBC would have to consist of some very daft and naive people.

The BBC produces a whole spectrum of material for a variety of audiences. Much of it is tolerant, some is even avant garde. Some, unfortunately, pathetically panders to the morally moronic minority. (My goodness, I must have swallowed the 'Journalist's guide to literary style'.) I wonder which section of the beeb got its unctuous digits on H2G2?

Can't think who it was - some smartalec researcher - did a search on the rest of the BBC site for language that is being censored here on h2g2 and found LOADS of it all over the place.

Certain double-standards applied here, and with as yet inadequate explanations. I think Peta said it was something to do with context and expectations, e.g. the football pages were allowed to use strong language because 'slang' was expected on football sites - this made so little sense to me!!

Surely the people who we are protecting by using moderated language can acccess any part of the BBC site - and the strong language, when it was ever used here (we were very good at self-moderating before the BBC codified it all), was generally used within an appropriate context (in as much as the pathetic football context seems to be justified).

I'll try and find this conversation again and let you know where it is.

Do they bleep out f**k?

Hi Anne, Nick and the rest of you subversives

Anne - you're certainly not the only one who's annoyed with the proactive censorship arrangement. I've been trying to ascertain the boundaries of the rules regarding 'offensive' postings, but they seem to move every five minutes. In one forum I was told that (for example) if you wanted to write a piece on why you don't like Christianity, as long as you're not offensive, you're allowed to do this. Yet whilst browsing through a moderation forum I've found someone in exactly this situation... they were in a discussion with someone as to why Christianity didn't work for them (a *personal* opinion, remember) and the whole thing was removed. 'Freedom of speech' is indeed an oxymoron here. And never mind the First Amendment; as far as I'm concerned, the fact that you're simply alive should be enough to allow you to say precisely what you wish, without repercussion. Unfortunately...

Nick - I was asked elsewhere to clarify why I think the Beeb is a 'faceless organisation' in regard to its taking on of H2. I pointed out it's merely an acquisition for the BBC; an expansion asset, nothing more, but no-one seemed too bothered to contradict me on that... Hmmm... no-one has commented on my point regarding things like Alf Garnett which the BBC broadcast, either... Would a researcher get away with writing such stuff on their page? I think not.

Frizzychick - Double standards at the Beeb? Surely not! Remember when they ordered people on 'Have I Got News For You' not to mention anything about Peter Mandelson's dodgy goings on because he was the DG's mate? Not this time, though, his previous instalment of misdemeanours? Unfortunately, the top H2 bods are now in the clutches of the BBC so it's now a case of "Jump? Certainly sir. And how high would you like me to jump?" and I can't see that changing.

As for the Moderators... making up for sexual repression or due to a personality bypass? "Must obey... kill naughty words... no capacity for individual thought... freedom of expression is evil... must obey..."

It's a farquin shame...

~LW~

Is there some UK history to the word "feck"? I picked up "Conker's Bad Fur Day" for the N64 last week (finished it 3 times now). All the signs in the game that mean to say "f***" say "f**k" instead. It seems odd that you would happen to mention the same word.

I assume that we're allowed to use some slang or nonsense, since "f**k" wasn't censored in your post.

The URL that was removed in an earlier post of mine was, of course, the home page of a company two blocks away from me called Atomic Cartoons. I didn't even write a link. I wrote "www dot [name] dot com" (and if the preceding quote, which references nothing at all, gets censored, then this place is WAY too Orwellian for me).

I'm sure you can figure out the URL from the company's name. No spaces.

This post's treatment by the censors could be telling...

Actually, I didn't even write "www", I wrote "triple-w".