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

Before the BBC came along, M2M2 http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A290710 , the h2g2 lesbigay area, was a much loved minority area of the site. Unfortunately, the BBC evidently hates fags.

Try to look at http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A302806 - which used to be the 'M2M2 Homophobe Blacklist', a page outlining recent high profile homophobes, and what they have done and said. This was PURELY informational, and certainly didn't make suggestions of any actions that should be taken against them (which, in fact, is detailed in another page). I've just been emailed by Peta to tell me that the lawyers have decided that it's actually 'campaigning', and therefore against the T&C. Apparently pointing out that someone is a loud-mouthed, ignorant, stupid gay-hater is campaigning. I thought it was just relating facts, but evidently not.

So yes, no more telling people about the c**ts (and I certainly don't use that word lightly) who are trying to prevent equality for all.

Well done BBC, another great move for peace and friendship there. And not censorship at all, oh no!

I think the word 'gutless' springs to mind.

This is an incredibly rude statement to make about us Ben/Tony. You know the Editorial team personally. And you *know* that we are not anti-gay. I personally retrieved the m2m2 pages and put them back up because someone asked me where they had gone to, and I thought they were interesting and worthwhile. You didn't reactivate them did you? No, I did, so how does that make me anti-gay?

And what else did I say in the email Ben? That you could put it up on your own webspace, and link to it from your personal space on h2g2. And then I told you how to retrieve the information from your personal space, so that you could put it up.

According to the advice we have received, the entry was definitely campaigning. As I said to you in the email, you might think that campaigning is okay, but what if someone campaigns for something you don't like? Would it be okay then? Probably not. Anyway it's a moot point because it's against the terms and conditions.

Oh and one more thing, your sentence 'So yes, no more telling people about the c**ts (and I certainly don't use that word lightly) who are trying to prevent equality for all.' - I think that phrase is sexist. You're using a slang term for a female part of the anatomy as a term of abuse. Equality for all huh? Well done that man.

If you thought this out, Tony, the solution is obvious. The BBC lawyers are a nervous bunch (and understandably so) and if they are worried that your pages were campaigning, then it is a critisism worth taking on board.

Swearing at the corperation or its lawyers never works, unless you have better lawyers - I should know, I have enough copyright and co-production tiffs with them over the last 20 years. And they often have a point.

Your solution, should you decide to take it, is to rethink the pages and the information, make it so they cannot quibble and re-submit. Leave the expleetives to those with a more limited vocabulary.

Tony,

Welcome to the Disney-fried version of h2g2.

I have to agree with Peta in part, however, that they are not singling out gays. This action is consistent with the ways they've censored other controversial or political discussion. It sounds as if your page, if it did not express any actions to be taken against bigots, was not really campaigning. But unfortunately there's no way for the rest of us to judge for ourselves how much of a transgression against the rules your page might have been, because we can no longer see it. I would encourage you to post the full text of the removed/deleted entry on n2g2. It will help us keep track of the kind of minor things that keep getting censored on h2g2, and it allows the rest of us to judge for ourselves.

The rules have been interpreted broadly to remove a lot of posts that would harm no one, apparently to protect the image of impartiality of the BBC, which we are clearly not representing if you believe the disclaimer at the bottom of this and every page: "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."

Wonder what constitutes "campaigning" these days? If I say that I voted for Ralph Nader and the Green Party in November 2000, isn't that a clear indication that I supported them and continue to support them? Should this message be removed now, because it could be broadly interpreted as "campaigning?" To be consistent, they should remove all political discussion of any degree, because the Beeb's reputation for impartiality could be tarnished by the things we say. Besides, Mark says, "virtual elections are more fun"

We just have to come to grips with the fact that many important topics of discussion, many things that we would like to communicate can not be done at h2g2 under their current rules. It's just another footnote we have to add to the increasingly inaccurate description of the ENGLISH-ONLY UK Edition of the guide to "Life, The Universe and EVERYTHING*."

*EVERYTHING should not be seen to include topics such as the 2001 UK General Election, original images, heavy political discussion that could be seen as "campaigning," ASCII images of people aiming guns, and other topics yet to be added to this list, etc.

Peta,
I am sorry if you really take this posting personally, since I do know the Editorial team, and they're all lovely. The reason I posted this to this forum is precisely that, when it was h2g2 in charge, M2M2 was nurtured and loved. Now the BBC arrived it's decided that it can't stay.
I don't know if you've seem it, but my title wasn't serious. It's a parody of [URL removed by moderator](which URL will be deleted). I'm sorry if it wasn't clear, but I don't seriously think that the BBC is being deliberately homophobic, just insensitive about a very sensitive subject.
Sorry if that came over aggressively - it wasn't meant to (hence the jokey allusion), but I think deleting entries that tell it how it is isn't a good thing at all!
Sympathetic Tony

Can I point people to the thread on the Community Soapbox at http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F55683?thread=109968 ? In a nutshell the advice we've been given is that campaigning should be removed... but like Lucinda in the thread above, I can't find anything in the House Rules or BBC Terms that specifically bans it. We're heading home right now (it's the end of play in London), but tomorrow we'll try to clear this up, either by adding something specific to the House Rules, or by reversing any wrong decisions. In the meantime, try not to drum it up into a cause celebre - at least, not until we've pinned our colours to the mast! :-)

avast ye.

All discussion of possible boarding parties will be tabled until tomorrow.

Hi. I've posted the 'official line' at http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F55683?thread=109968 - check it out. In a nutshell, campaigning is fine as long as it doesn't cross the line into harassment or causing distress to other people. We're going to work with Tony to fix the small but important issues within the M2M2 blacklist that we felt crossed this line. Hope this answers the question.

Tony, when I tried to visit the M2M2 homophobe blacklist page at http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A302806 it now shows "This Guide Entry has been deleted from the Guide by the author."

Is that true? There has been a bug in some places where entries that were censored by h2g2 staff come up with this message. It adds insult to injury, and it really, really, really ought to be corrected, if it's not true.

dum dum dee,
dee dee dum,
dee dee dum.

Still waiting ....

Does anyone know?
Will we find out in next week's exciting episode of
the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy?
(How d'you like my impersonation of Peter Jones?)

Will the person who wrote Post #12 please revise and post again so we can see what you were trying to say?

Give us a chance Subcom. I'm just getting to reviewing it myself. It might be back in a minute!

?PERPLEXIUA?

Someone owns the copyright to "dum dum dee?"

Hey, Subcom.,
Well, bless my soul!
(That is of course the well known old English expression not to be confused with the possibly copyright similar expression in a musical recording from the late 1950s by the late beat-combo rock 'n roll artiste Elvis Presley.)
Who would have thought it?
If it had been:
Dum di dum di didi dum didi dee,
then I might have understood it; but it wasn't.
Thanks for your prompt action to restore the post, but we are still no nearer knowing whether Tony "voluntarily" removed the article.

I think we should be told.

Hell, that's nothing. I just saw on Moderation Help Desk where the censors removed a poetical post because they THOUGHT it sounded good enough to be copyrighted! That's a surefire way to prevent quality content on h2g2, even better than indirectly scaring off the creative people.

As for the question of "deleted by author," maybe Tony actually did delete it. I haven't heard back from him. Mark has been good about fixing this bug when it happened on Almighty Rob's "Zaphodista Propaganda" page. If it were untrue and if Tony asked for it to be fixed, I'm sure they would be cool about it and fix it.

I've had a look in the database, and according to the records, the following events happened:

April 30 2001

Peta decided to unhide the whole M2M2 area, as otherwise it would take a while to get through the legacy moderation queue. However the homophobe blacklist page caused us some concern over potential libel, so we used the moderation tools to fail it, and contacted Tony explaining why.

May 1 2001

Tony undeleted his entry at 11:58am, but then three minutes later he deleted it again - possibly because he wanted to look at the contents of the entry? Anyway, the message is correct on this one; the author has indeed deleted the entry himself.

Hope this helps - no bugs for me to fix on this one, I'm afraid.

Thank you, Sir,
You are an officer and a gentleman.
Albeit an officer in the wrong army.