A Conversation for Ask h2g2
The Edited Entry they don't want you to read
Blues Shark - For people who like this sort of thing, then this is just the sort of thing they'll like Posted Jul 18, 2003
Peta the idea wasn't entirely serious (hence the at the end of the sentence), but frankly, what else are we supposed to do?
As Ashley appears to have admitted on behalf of the editorial team at h2g2 that they have no more idea what is going on than we do, then it would appear that as researchers we are completely without power in this example. That will make people resort to the type of action I mentioned (not to mention the sort of tirade posted by FB).
'Editorial Policy' made this decision. The very least they can do is acknowledge that fact, and offer some kind of explanation. If I make a decision of comaparable weight and gravity in *my* job, I know damn well that I'd be expected to justify bothe the decision and the consequences of that decision to the people it effects. Why should 'Editorial Policy' (whose wages are, after all, paid by my licence fee) not extend the same professional standards to us? And if they do not, why should we not resort to more extremem measures.
This decision has huge and far reaching ramifications not just for the two entries already removed, but for any entry that may at some point fall foul of some faceless burueacrat in the depths (or heights) of the BBC.
And while we're on the the subject, do the entries still say that they were removed at the request of the authors? If so, that remains a disgraceful canard.
The Edited Entry they don't want you to read
a girl called Ben Posted Jul 18, 2003
They'll duck that one.
The Edited Entry they don't want you to read
Blues Shark - For people who like this sort of thing, then this is just the sort of thing they'll like Posted Jul 18, 2003
You know that, I know that, I suspect they know that you and I know that.
But I just felt it had to be said.
The Edited Entry they don't want you to read
Will Posted Jul 18, 2003
"And while we're on the the subject, do the entries still say that they were removed at the request of the authors? If so, that remains a disgraceful canard."
A1000684:
"This Guide Entry has been deleted from the Guide by the author."
In other words, yes.
The Edited Entry they don't want you to read
Kerr_Avon - hunting stray apostrophes and gutting poorly parsed sentences Posted Jul 18, 2003
The Edited Entry they don't want you to read
Peet (the Pedantic Punctuation Policeman, Muse of Lateral Programming Ideas, Eggcups-Spurtle-and-Spoonswinner, BBC Cheese Namer & Zaphodista) Posted Jul 18, 2003
The Edited Entry they don't want you to read
Blues Shark - For people who like this sort of thing, then this is just the sort of thing they'll like Posted Jul 18, 2003
The Edited Entry they don't want you to read
Kerr_Avon - hunting stray apostrophes and gutting poorly parsed sentences Posted Jul 18, 2003
I've just sent another email- granted that's two in one week, but since I got no response for the previous one...
<ale.
The Edited Entry they don't want you to read
Tube - the being being back for the time being Posted Jul 18, 2003
I fully agree with Blues .
The Powers Behind The Towers had ample time to come up with an explanation. There is little in the way of making them; no way to force them. Thus, getting on their nerves seems a fair way of dealing with the situation.
Other than that one could complain to the next higher authority about the lack of reaction of EP. But who is the next one up?
BTW, you could go and tell Blair about this outrageous behaviour of the BBC... maybe you'd get some back-up from him...
The Edited Entry they don't want you to read
Blues Shark - For people who like this sort of thing, then this is just the sort of thing they'll like Posted Jul 18, 2003
Oh good grief. Yuou know, thats so bad I had sucessfully blocked it from my mind until you pointed it out FB (or is it FM? 'This nickname has been altered at the request of the author'...).
Ben, you should be ashamed. Or very proud. I can't decide which...
The Edited Entry they don't want you to read
Kerr_Avon - hunting stray apostrophes and gutting poorly parsed sentences Posted Jul 18, 2003
The Edited Entry they don't want you to read
Peet (the Pedantic Punctuation Policeman, Muse of Lateral Programming Ideas, Eggcups-Spurtle-and-Spoonswinner, BBC Cheese Namer & Zaphodista) Posted Jul 18, 2003
I just tipped off "Feedback" (Radio 4) to the existence of this thread, and asked them is they could explain the situation regarding departmental accountability and "Editorial Policy". Here's hoping...
The Edited Entry they don't want you to read
Will Posted Jul 18, 2003
From aforequoted entry:
"While the entry doesn't break the h2g2 House Rules themselves, we have to consider the wider picture and abide by the decisions made by Editorial Policy."
I suppose that we're supposed to know what this "Editorial Policy" thing is, being as our entries apparently have to conform to it? Okay, let's see... BBCi search on "Editorial Policy"...
* clicks the first relevent-seeming link. Frowns. Clicks a few more *
Hmm... all 404s. Let's try the next page... MORE 404s, and one PDF, which I intend to look at. Hey, it has the title "accountable.pdf". How hypoc^H^H^H^H^H interesting. Let's carry on through the search pages while I'm waiting for it download... hey, some more 404s... you know what, I'm getting kinda tired. Let's stop being annoyed and start making points. For a start, the complete inability of BBCi to keep its search engine up to date is abysmal, but that's not what we're talking about. Incidentally, that PDF wasn't much use, either.
*cough*
Okay, I'm sorry if the previous paragraph sounded angry, but it's 1.23am, and I've been .
Let's look at the wider picture for a minute. Everything that we write on here is supposed to conform to the House Rules. We all have that in our heads as a given, and abide by the rules as much as we can.
However, that obviously isn't enough. Even though we go to such lengths to make our content acceptable to BBCi, they expect higher standards from us. I don't care about the legal wording here. I know that BBCi can delete whatever they want, without warning. What I do care about is that there are a group of people in BBCi who think it's acceptable to order the removal of content without explaining their reasons to the community.
The Italic-sent e-mail states that both we and they must "abide by the decisions made by Editorial Policy". I understand that the Italics are not to blame for this, but how can we abide by Editorial Policy if we don't know what Editorial Policy is, or what Editorial Policy wants?
If the reality is that BBCi noticed the now-deleted entries, and decided to execute privilage-not-right over us, because they have their own agenda, then I'm fine with that.
What I, personally, am not fine about is the Italic/BBCi reaction to this. The core of the problem here, as far as I can see, is no one is stepping up and saying "Yes, we deleted your entry, because it violated this, this, and this section of the Editorial Policy, which you can find at this URI.". That wouldn't necessarily have had to be an Italic. One of the important people from BBCi Editorial Policy could have dropped by and explained it. However, that's probably not going to happen, so I'll focus on the Italics for now.
As I've said, an explaination would have been nice. Instead, we got this:
Post 90, by Ashley: completely humourous, ROFLMAO comment. We know that the Italics were aware of this thread, though, so it wasn't a case of "We didn't realise there was a problem."
Post 208, also by Ashley: another (I hope) humourous comment.
Post 217, by Peta: again, pretty much nothing to do with the core issues.
I've done a page search on the Italics' names, and that's all that I can find. If I missed something, shout at me.
Personally, I've had experience as an admin on a site much more hostile than this one. If there was a situation like this on there, I would have stepped in and explained what was going on. In my opinion, the complete lack of dialogue between the community and the Italics (and probably the Italics and BBCi) is deplorable. We've been sitting here shouting for feedback for three weeks, and have got nothing.
There is only one possible reason that I can think of for this: that BBCi has told the Italics not to respond to queries about this, and to effectivly kill the conversation. If that's the case, I have serious concerns about BBCi's idea of how they can treat the h2g2 community.
If that isn't the case, I request that an Italic post here, tell us what is going on, offer an explanation for the lack of feedback, and basically get a dialog going here so we can sort this out.
And if that doesn't work, I'll be happy to go down the e-mail route. Anyone know the address of the BBCi person in charge of the Italics?
Will (dreaming of Wikipedia )
The Edited Entry they don't want you to read
Mu Beta Posted Jul 18, 2003
Bloody hell - have we got Sub-editors who write stuff for Wikipedia? That's disgraceful!
I thought I was the only person to get Ben's duck joke until Hoov/FB pointed it out. Made me laugh...
B
The Edited Entry they don't want you to read
Ashley Posted Jul 18, 2003
>>> Sorry, but last I heard, YOU WORK THERE.
Oh I do, so do over 20,000 other people. Everything we've heard from Ed Pol we've passed on. I just thought the favour could be reciprocrated.
The Edited Entry they don't want you to read
Peet (the Pedantic Punctuation Policeman, Muse of Lateral Programming Ideas, Eggcups-Spurtle-and-Spoonswinner, BBC Cheese Namer & Zaphodista) Posted Jul 18, 2003
Ashley, I don't think it was personal, it was just a case of blind font prejudice. Your name was in the wrong typeface at the wrong place, at the wrong time.
Do you think you could take a moment, please, to describe "Ed Pol" for us? i.e. What is their remit, their position in the organisation, who are they answerable to, what are the official channels (if any) to query their decisions...? The sort of info that a BBC that prides itself on its "openness" in reports ( ...) should have easily available on its website.
If you don't know, try looking for the documents inside a locked filing cabinet in a disused lavatory down a flight of unlit stairs behind a door with a sign that says "Beware of the Leopard"...?
The Edited Entry they don't want you to read
Will Posted Jul 18, 2003
"Everything we've heard from Ed Pol we've passed on."
Okay, so let me see if I've got this straight...
A bossy-looking BBCi official walks into your office one day. Sie goes straight to whoever deletes entries around here, taps them on the shoulder, and tells them to move.
Sie then sits down, clicks a few buttons, deletes the entries, gets up, and walks off. You don't get an explanation, and said official never comes back.
How far off am I?
The Edited Entry they don't want you to read
Ashley Posted Jul 18, 2003
Oh the personal abuse I can rise above - I'll see what I can dig out for you.
Key: Complain about this post
The Edited Entry they don't want you to read
- 221: Blues Shark - For people who like this sort of thing, then this is just the sort of thing they'll like (Jul 18, 2003)
- 222: a girl called Ben (Jul 18, 2003)
- 223: Blues Shark - For people who like this sort of thing, then this is just the sort of thing they'll like (Jul 18, 2003)
- 224: Will (Jul 18, 2003)
- 225: Kerr_Avon - hunting stray apostrophes and gutting poorly parsed sentences (Jul 18, 2003)
- 226: Peet (the Pedantic Punctuation Policeman, Muse of Lateral Programming Ideas, Eggcups-Spurtle-and-Spoonswinner, BBC Cheese Namer & Zaphodista) (Jul 18, 2003)
- 227: Blues Shark - For people who like this sort of thing, then this is just the sort of thing they'll like (Jul 18, 2003)
- 228: Kerr_Avon - hunting stray apostrophes and gutting poorly parsed sentences (Jul 18, 2003)
- 229: Tube - the being being back for the time being (Jul 18, 2003)
- 230: Frumious Bandersnatch (Jul 18, 2003)
- 231: Blues Shark - For people who like this sort of thing, then this is just the sort of thing they'll like (Jul 18, 2003)
- 232: PQ (Jul 18, 2003)
- 233: Kerr_Avon - hunting stray apostrophes and gutting poorly parsed sentences (Jul 18, 2003)
- 234: Peet (the Pedantic Punctuation Policeman, Muse of Lateral Programming Ideas, Eggcups-Spurtle-and-Spoonswinner, BBC Cheese Namer & Zaphodista) (Jul 18, 2003)
- 235: Will (Jul 18, 2003)
- 236: Mu Beta (Jul 18, 2003)
- 237: Ashley (Jul 18, 2003)
- 238: Peet (the Pedantic Punctuation Policeman, Muse of Lateral Programming Ideas, Eggcups-Spurtle-and-Spoonswinner, BBC Cheese Namer & Zaphodista) (Jul 18, 2003)
- 239: Will (Jul 18, 2003)
- 240: Ashley (Jul 18, 2003)
More Conversations for Ask h2g2
Write an Entry
"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."