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

Following recent decisions to remove a number of pieces of edited and non-edited content, and the ensuing discussions, we've come to the decision that further guidance on the suitability of some of the content might be useful to Researchers.

Ultimately, the h2g2 Editors and the BBC are responsible for the content on this site, and the final decision must rest with them. However, we'd value your input in defining a framework around which we can establish some guidelines. We hope that these guidelines, once they've been created, can offer some basic parameters regarding the type of subject areas which might be more likely to be failed.

This doesn't mean that every entry within a particular content type will be failed, it's just that entries within areas we consider to be high risk will be subject to greater scrutiny and may be removed, at the discretion of the BBC.

In order to stimulate an ordered discussion around this topic, we've created an Entry at A965252. Please join in the discussions as we value your input in helping us move forward on this issue.

*bookmarks*

Can anyone give me the e-mail address to contact the editors, cause the contact us button has nothing to do with h2g2.

bookmark

Kaz:
[email protected]

HTH

Done now Tube, ta!

Mel

It's already on the 5 busiest conversation lists...

That's nothing, Jodan. I accidentally managed that with posting FB's entry under itself yesterday.

Hmm. ok.

Everybody conga
One two three four conga
Dah da dum
Dah da DUM

oops sorry, just adding to the conga aren't I . . . oh well . . .

yet again we have another knee jerk reaction by the editors which completely misses the point of the complaints.

it is not a question of types of article being risky or not, but to do with the problems of arbitrary intervention without explanation.

when we had the molotov coctail entry going through, they jumped in early, told us what sort of content would be tricky, and kept involved so the work was all worthwhile.

in contrast, there was one recent entry where it went through peer review, what's comming up, and then edited guide status and the front page and was then mysteriously deleted from the edited guide without bothering to tell us what was wrong with it.

if they can't see the difference, then we need at least one new person there who can, and who will be listened to.

I hear Alistair Campbell might be looking for a new job soon...