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

Following a number of suggestions, we have updated the h2g2 Guidelines During the Afghanistan Crisis at http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A647859 to say that quoting the BBC is acceptable as long as the quote is accompanied by a link to the source on a BBC website.

fine, but this causes a moderation problem, as by the moderation rules, we are not supposed to quote links in the forums. how about getting the beeb to accept referenced to approved links, where the approved links are in a database, and start filling the database with bbc references when they occur. they can't object to these, as they are already on bbc sites, and thus must meet even more stringent conditions than things on h2g2.

You could even extend this by having it work only on approved threads, so that we can sneak it into the community soapbox and the peer review threads.

This could have the advantage of sneaking a mechanism for link quoting past the higher-ups at the bbc without them thinking about it too much, thereby presenting them with a fete' acompli.

xyroth,

It's acceptable to give links to bbc.co.uk within conversation threads according to the House Rules:

"Depending on how the trial goes, this policy may be revised, but in the meantime, we will remove all URLs from Conversations and Nicknames, except for those to bbc.co.uk sites (including h2g2)."

perhaps, but this does not necessarily include things like bbcworldwide, beeb.net, and a number of other bbc provided sites.

True. Just have to find BBC quotes that are available somewhere on bbc.co.uk. (I think the whole new set of Guidelines is hogwash, acting like the BBC/h2g2 are responsible for what 90,000 researchers might write here. But at least they made a simple concession when they recognized how easy it was. Surprising that they even allow this baby step, when it forces moderators to check up on peoples' sources more.)

xyroth, we're aware of the annoyance of not being able to link from Postings to non-bbc.co.uk URLs (including beebnet et al) - this isn't a new argument! We're still pushing for this policy to be reviewed, but with the current crisis the chances are slim of anything happening in the near future. Our apologies, but we've been through the reasoning behind the BBC policy on this one many times, and there's nothing new to add, really.

Subcom: "I think the whole new set of Guidelines is hogwash, acting like the BBC/h2g2 are responsible for what 90,000 researchers might write here"

The issue isn't really our responsibilty to those writing, but to the millions reading. As a part of the BBC website, h2g2 has to ensure that all its content meets all BBC-wide guidelines; there is no option, as the public (and litigious lawyers) rarely care about disclaimers, and only see the 'BBC' part at the top.

You should see some of the complaints we receive about our content - quite a few people assume that it's been wholly endorsed by the BBC, which you'd think wouldn't happen given the in-yer-face nature of the disclaimers. It does happen, though.

"Surprising that they even allow this baby step, when it forces moderators to check up on peoples' sources more."

It was in the interests of the Community to make that change. It has increased our workload, though... but that's life!

* applause *

if the main problem is due to the bbc being emblazoned all over the site, the solution is relatively simple.

transfer the h2g2 department from bbc online to beeb.net, whioch moves it to the bbc isp. expectations of people viewing from there will be different.

the other thing to remove this problem is to move the site back to h2g2.com, which will mean that it does not need to include bbc.co.uk in the url of every page, thereby removing a lot of the confusion between bbc generated content, and user generated content.

none of this needs to significantly affect the legal position of the bbc, but will significantly affect the bbc lawyers (and casual users) perception of what the site is. it could also be done for just the cost of the h2g2.com domain, and a similar url; translation that was done when you moved to be part of bbc.co.uk.

Except that the BBC likes h2g2, it thinks it is a really happening place, and it wants to hang around with us.

agcB

"You should see some of the complaints we receive about our content - quite a few people assume that it's been wholly endorsed by the BBC, which you'd think wouldn't happen given the in-yer-face nature of the disclaimers."

Sad that the users of h2g2 have suffer just because of the misperceptions of ignorant people.

"Except that the BBC likes h2g2, it thinks it is a really happening place, and it wants to hang around with us."

I can't think of a situation in real life where a friend who enjoys spending time with me also feels it necessary to keep his hand clamped over my mouth half the time we're together.

But that's just me. Maybe I have a weird circle of friends.

If you look at it objectively, I'm sure you'll find that there aren't really all that many things you can't say.

Interesting idea, xyroth, but if h2g2 joined beebnet we would have banner adverts again, would be commercial, and would have to be profit-driven. Regardless of the annoyance to Researchers of banner ads and commercial links from entries that might be able to flog goods (remember those from the Good Old Days? ), h2g2 would have to make money.

Seeing as we totally failed to do that last year, that would probably be a good way to destroy the editorial independence of the site, unless we charged a subscription fee - that might work financially, but it would be a bit of a blow to the concept of the site.

(BTW the guidelines for the commercial arm of the BBC are just as big, if not bigger; it's a *real* minefield, that!)

agcBen is right; the BBC loves h2g2, even if it does challenge the Way Things Have Always Been Done. Indeed, that's one of the reasons the site is held in high esteem!

(Small point: Mark, Peta and Abi are off to the Dutch meet tomorrow, so apologies if this is the last you'll hear from us for a while; there's lots to get organised, but we hope we've answered your main concerns.)

"If you look at it objectively, I'm sure you'll find that there aren't really all that many things you can't say."

According to Tom Brokaw ..........

....
....

....

...

yes, I think there is a range of perfectly innocuous things that are clearly outlawed by the new guidelines, and a larger range of things that can be censored depending on how broadly one interprets the new guidelines.

And are these things which I've never had any trouble with things that you might want to say or can't live without being able to say?

"And are these things which I've never had any trouble with things that you might want to say or can't live without being able to say?"

If it's a bad idea, then what does it matter how many or how few it affects? I mean, the government could hold a lottery to sacrifice one percent of our population to the swamp gods. It might not affect me. It might not affect many people. It would still be wrong.

Of course, this is a bad comparison, because we all know the Italics are beholden to the rock gods, not the swamp gods but the idea is, if it's unreasonable to censor two people, then the low number of people affected does not make the policy any more reasonable.

It certainly won't affect me, because I won't bother writing anything very political on h2g2, at least not without expecting that it could be censored at any moment. I can live without it, the whole community can live without it, but we shouldn't have to.

I think this is really a conversation for the moderation forums and not for one particularly relating to a very dangerous and sensitive issue.

Is it possible to move the whole thread over to some where more appropriate? A lot of what is being said here has been said before when we came back on line originally after the shut down. The moderation has improved greatly since then so some of the old points raised are no longer relevant but it might be worth going back and having a look to see what was discussed then.

FABT

I started a conversation thread on the Community Soapbox at http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F55683?thread=147779 and someone there suggested we keep conversation in threads under the Guidelines During Afghanistan Crisis entry. "I think this is really a conversation for the moderation forums and not for one particularly relating to a very dangerous and sensitive issue." How does questioning censorship put anyone at risk?