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

Outdoor sex isn't illegal yet. The relevant pieces of legislation have yet to enter the statute books, when it will covered by Blunkett's new and ridiculous laws against indecency (in it's present form, you *could* be prosecuted for having sex inside your own home if others, outside, can see in.)

Overall I'd take the whole thing a lot more seriously if it weren't for this comment;

'I'm not paranoid, but you've got to wonder what I might have done to get this treatment.'

Sure sounds paranoid to me. I don't wonder what *you've* done at all. I wonder what has happened to cause a change in editorial policy. As is often the case, your overall point is weakened by your constant belief that this is some sort of personal vendetta.

That is of course very easy for you to say, BS, because it's not you that it's happening to.

"I wonder what has happened to cause a change in editorial policy."

Well, so would I, if that was what it was. But the thing is:

- there's been no announcement of a change in Editorial Policy.

- I don't know of any other entries which have been summarily deleted from the Edited Guide (does anyone?)

- It's not something I've ever even *heard* of happening before

What makes you think Editorial Policy has changed?

I *don't* think it's a personal vendetta at all. I just think it's really, really weird that such a thing can happen, and since it's happening to me, I just wonder why, is all. Wouldn't you? Especially if it happened to you more than once?

FB

I'm fully aware of the irony of my acting as an apologist for the editors.

That said...

"Unfortunately Editorial Policy have made the decision that the entry "A Gentleman's Guide to Home-made Adult Entertainment" breaks the BBC's guidelines for content and have instructed us to remove it from h2g2."

This makes it pretty clear that the removal of the entry was not a decision made by the h2g2 editors. Having read through the BBC Producer's Guidelines, all of which apply to BBCi sites, it's clear that Editorial Policy is a group of BBC employees, not a policy.

Since the decision came from them, not the h2g2 editors, it would be more appropriate to seek an explanation from them. In particular, the phrase "have instructed us to remove it from h2g2" is a clear statement that this decision was handed down to the editors from on high.

You'll notice there is a subtle ddistinction here between my 'editorial policy' and your 'Editorial Policy'. One would, admittedly need to be announced. The other would not (arguably).

For what it's worth, I do think you are entitled to a reasonable explanation of what has happened, and why. But it wouldn't encourage me to give you one if your response in the first instance is to try and make a crisis out of a molehill (to mix metaphors) by running straight to the community with every moderation problem that you have.

As for other's being removed, well, I can't say. We shall find out, I'm guessing.

At the risk of flogging a dead horse...

"running straight to the community with every moderation problem that you have."

This is, once again for the hard of thinking, NOT A MODERATION PROBLEM. I've long given up expecting any logic to or explanation for those. If this was just some posting or entry getting moderated, nobody would have heard anything about it, because apart from anything else I wouldn't expect anyone to care. They would, I expect, take precisely the same attitude as you - "Oh, not HIM again. Moaning about nothing again? What does he expect? Troublemaker. Ignore him, he's a waste of time."

This is NOT about moderation. I no longer care about moderation, because apart from anything else, it doesn't affect me any more.

This is about the *deletion* of *Edited* Guide entries (or rather, one that I'm aware of) for reasons which are very much less than clear. That could affect anyone and everyone, potentially.

And while the Editors are in charge of h2g2, they can explain what goes on here, since that's what they're paid to do.

FB.

Tell me is the Tai Chi makes you this aggressive all the time? My understanding was that it was meant to do rather the opposite...

FB, the word "Deleted" is used very lightly on h2g2.

When an author deletes a Guide entry, they can still go to <./>MA208060?type=3</.> (replace 208060 with your user number) at any time to restore the entry.

It'll still be in the database somewhere, but the message displayed is different to that of a moderated entry (in fact, I think it's policy to 'delete' EG entries if someone somewhere says so).

Interesting. I just tried that. It doesn't work.

I assume it doesn't work because the thing which has been deleted was the Edited Entry, not my original. The list is simply blank.

I'd be interested to know if you know of any other Edited Entries which have been deleted, and on what grounds. (I've heard of one being taken out after it was found to be copied from somewhere or other, but that's simply plagiarism, which is against House Rules. The odd thing here is this Edited Entry didn't break any rules, but was still deleted.)

FB

"And while the Editors are in charge of h2g2..."



If you honestly believe that the Editors are anywhere but at the bottom of the BBC food chain in regards to h2g2, I've seriously underestimated your intelligence.

Those who make decisions should be held accountable for those decisions. Shoot (at) the messenger if you like. I'm not even going to pretend to understand your motivation.

>I assume it doesn't work because the thing which has been deleted was the Edited Entry, not my original. The list is simply blank.

Yep. In DNA terms, the "author" of an EG entry is the <./>SubEditor</.> while it's pending, and no-one after that (I think), so the only people who could "undelete" it are the Italics.

s/pending/recommended/

Once something has been deleted it loses what ever moderated/EG status is had and behaves like a normal guide entry. This means that it'll show in the cancelled list of the sub. The editors probably should have hidden the entry after deletion (or at least making it a normal entry) since hidden entries are implemented subtly differently.

spelugx

It is always good to see you back, David.

FB - I agree with you that it is odd, I agree with you it is inconsistent, I agree with you that you are owed an explanation, and I agree with Blues that your approach is disingenuously agressive. Softly, softly, via email would have been better. And it is clear that however they are handling it, this did not originate with the Italics.

a broad called Ben
*watching developments with interest*

*rolls up*

Interesting.

I am almost certain that this decision was made over and above our Editorial Team. I subbed this entry, and while I was dubious about the content myself, I received reassurances from TPTB to just go ahead and do my usual Sub job on it. 'Twas they who changed the word 'Pornography' to 'Adult Entertainment' in the title.

I did actually add a few bits and pieces of my own to the entry, as is the Sub's prerogative, so I am equally anxious to see what, if anything, will now happen.

Meanwhile, I'll happily answer any questions that I can.

B

... well in that case: how many roads must a man walk down, before you can call him a man?

Ben
(who is being irritatingly literal at the moment, and who really ought to take herself off-site before she really annoys someone)

42

B

Having not seen the entry or the thread I am worried about where this could lead. f hte entry had been passed by the h2g2 editors but has since be removed from a higher authority it would be interesting to know on what grounds and by whom. This sort of stuff is explained on a weekly basis on channels 4 and 5 so maybe we should see about getting h2g2 moved unto their web sites it an article without graphic pictures has been removed from the beeb.

However the list of article mentioned elsewhere in this thread all appear to be ok by guidelines as I understand them. And only Jimi X has done more writing under their constant changing than me. As for the killer mushrooms that is very typical of a lot of h2g2 entries which is informative about the obscure and the Dominatrix may be perverse in some eyes but is actually a factual article about alternative lifestlyes in our day and age. The same could be said about alfresco sex and condoms even I suppose. I just hope Blunkett fails on getting this bill through.

I mean legalising sex with the blinds open in your own house only to make it illegal in the back and beyond with no one for miles is rediculous.

Roll on the warm days again.

O fkaNBY: by "in charge" I mean "responsible for". I emphatically do not mean "in authority over" or in any way "in control of", because they're very, very obviously not, as this episode demonstrates.

It's not a job I'd like myself, because I've been in a job before where I had responsibility but no authority, and it sucks.

DD: "the list of article mentioned elsewhere in this thread all appear to be ok by guidelines"

Precisely my point. And so was the one that was deleted - until yesterday. Apparently.

FB.

Having read it most thoroughly, I would certainly not like to pick out a specific guideline that it contravenes.

B