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

Just for the sake of it I'd like to point out that I will only self-censor to a certain degree.

So, there!

I'm sure i'm sorry for wasting your time and trying to avoid PR become cluttered with off topic discussions...

Jeez louise, and you people wonder why I'm occasionally a little hostile to the 'troublesome' element?

Assuming the possibility (which may well not be the case) that someone higher up *has* overridden the initial decision to approve the article...

I can see that there are some articles that aren't going to be approved, and with various layers of authority above the people who work for h2g2, sometimes articles may end up being (ahem) 'revoked' even after approval, with little chance of precise explanation being given even to the staff, never mind the creator. In general, the higher up a 'no' comes from, the less likely it is to be followed by a reason (or be the result of an active or rational thought process).

That doesn't mean I approve of that kind of thing happening, just that I'm not sure what can be done about it. However, there should at least be some better way of explaining what has happened to an article than the misleading 'deleted by author' bit.

A bit like BS, I'm not really affected by exactly where the line gets drawn, since I'm not generaly motivated myself to write much that comes close to the wire, (apart from a possible article on breaking rock by hand-triggering blank cartridges that touches on various Health and Safety issues, and the writing of which isn't terribly necessary to my existence as a person anyway).

Unfortunately, it isn't really possible to get a comprehensive description of what is and what isn't allowed. Even if there was a perfect and only slightly inscrutable being doing the judging, in the end the only thing that could be done for borderline cases is to submit and see what happens.
In the real world, unexplained later revocations are certainly distressing and unfortunate, but I can't help thinking that *if* it's a case of some higher-up deciding to override the odd earlier decision, if the alternative was to submit every borderline case upwards for confirmation of the decision to include in the guide, there would generally be *more* articles rejected.

It might be that there's some manager in the BBC around who doesn't feel fulfilled unless they are overriding decisions of their staff, however competent, every now and again. God knows, there are enough of them elsewhere in UK industry. If thet's the case, some articles could be viewed as noble sacrifices to the god of perversity for the sake of all the other borderline cases.

Resubmission of even a modified version could be tricky in that it is awfully difficult to approve without passing up to whoever revoked the original article. Unless the new version is sufficiently bowdlerised to satisfy the original desire to make a difference, it probably wouldn't pass, and if it was edited to that point, it might be better to publish the full article elsewhere.

"Unfortunately, it isn't really possible to get a comprehensive description of what is and what isn't allowed."

But that is exactly what I expect of the Beep. Or anyone exercising power over my actions. Nulla poena sine lege certa, as the Romans said... no punishment without certain/spectific law. Next thing I know is that EP goes around censoring posings.
I accept that "they" have the power to do so, but I would like to see the rules according to which this power is exercised.

A perfectly reasonable set of ideas. Somehow I'm not holding my breath in light of the reaction that HVL has had, though...

"Assuming the possibility (which may well not be the case) that someone higher up *has* overridden the initial decision to approve the article..."

That is precisely the case, Potholer, as has been explicity explained to me at least twice by the h2g2 Editors. They approved the original entry - blimey, they EDITED it - and then two months later "Editorial Policy", who clearly outrank them, demanded it be deleted, and they had no choice but to comply. This is not my idle speculation, this is the fact as told to me in official emails from the Beeb.

"In general, the higher up a 'no' comes from, the less likely it is to be followed by a reason (or be the result of an active or rational thought process)."

And, I would submit, the more assiduously we should pursue it until either
(a) a reason is forthcoming, and one backed by a rational thought process at that, OR
(b) the decision is reversed.

We should not sit back and permit these faceless clowns, whose wages WE pay in the form of a license fee, to make arbitrary decisions without having to at least defend them rationally.

"A bit like BS, I'm not really affected by exactly where the line gets drawn, "

Neither of you are, today. But what about tomorrow? Remember, YOU don't get a say in where the line is drawn. Saying "it doesn't affect me" is like saying you're not concerned about the effect of the MMR vaccine because you don't have kids, or you don't care about BSE because you're a vegetarian, or you don't care about American imperialist bullying because you don't live in Iran or North Korea. "I'm alright Jack" mentality is fine, until you are no longer alright, and nobody else cares because they know you never did.

I happen to care, and I'm apparently one of a dwindling band, and I *started* caring because of events which happened to someone else. Just an observation...

"Resubmission of even a modified version could be tricky"

Let's see, shall we? F48874?thread=288486

I have to say my main point of curiosity in this whole thing is - why NOW? What happened last Friday, or in the days leading up to it, which drew attention to my article (and KerrAvon's)? Was some jobsworth BBC functionary trawling h2g2 looking for trouble? And if so, how come my harmless amusement was the best he/she could do?

Alternatively, if it was some latterday Mary Whitearse getting the vapours in her semi in Tunbridge Wells and writing a strongly worded email of complaint, why wasn't she simply sent the usual patronising crap the BBC send out to all the other nutters saying how they cater to a wide audience and have to offer diversity of content, blah blah?

I really am very, very interested to know what prompted this sweep. I do hope someone on the staff can tell me, either here or by email...

FB

Apologies Blues, I was a little tired last night when I got up to date with the three day discussion. If nothing else comes of it at least I've learnt a bit about HVL.

Pimms

Oh, and a belated to BS for trying to keep the PR thread on topic. Thanks.

FB

Surely you're not expecting the old 'we pay your wages' gambit to achieve results? As our elected politiciansd no longer feel the need to justify, explain or even make rational decisions, I'm guessing that expecting faceless bureaucrats to do so is a bit of a forlorn hope...

But for the most part, you are absolutely correct. (Onlookers may wish to make a note of this date in their diaries. As Ben remarked earlier, it's not often the Blue Boys agree on very much.)

The email I had back, after I queried a) what the problem was and b) why it took 'em so long, also mentioned the 'taste and decency' clause, which quite frankly could mean anything. It also suggested the h2g2 team were pretty such that was the problem, but not 100%

Reading between the lines my own personal interpretation of the 'why so long?' question's answer was- something has happened to prompt EP to start going through EG entries and review them. A complaint about one entry perhaps, I don't know.

I do still want an on-site official type explaination of the general reasons for this 'ere review though - I'm not daft enough to suggest the whole story will ever be posted

Well, I'm expecting results... just not necessarily the most useful ones. The result I usually hope for when I mention this stuff is to remind *anyone* reading what the relationship is between customers and people acting in the capacity of employees of the BBC. It's easy to forget, for both sides.

This is especially prevalent because the BBC has historically handed down content from on high to the grateful huddled masses, and expected back only the occasional "why oh why" letter to points of view. Put another way, they've functioned in two modes - one to many (broadcast) and many to one (letters to the BBC).

In the internet age, the masses are now not just writing ABOUT content, we're generating content ourselves - the paradigm is now "many to many". It's not broadcast in the old sense, it's something else. This is a big change, and the Beeb is obviously having fun trying to come to terms with it.

No, I don't expect the "I pay your wages" line to actually change anything, other than to perhaps make one or two readers (if there are any out there apart from thee and me) think "blimey, he's right, we do you know." And if that indignation makes them contribute to the argument - excellent.

FB

At the risk of this seeming to turn into a mutual backslapping session, a to PL for a bit of fuelled ire which you didn't deserve, and a to HVL.

Kerr, of course your query and frustration pre-supposes it's ONLY the Edited Guide that Policy have been looking at...

KA - how the hell does "Taste and Decency" apply to opening a car door (unless you're trying to open it with your c**k?(not YOUR c**k, obviously, you're a girl...)).

I can at least begin to understand how that excuse - and that's what it is, and excuse, not an explanation - could be applied to what I wrote, but from your description of what you've had deleted, it really does sound like the worst kind of irrelevant brush-off.

FB

Speaking from a 'professional' standpoint (or at least what passes for professional in my world ), I had reservations about Kerr's entry when it was originally submitted.

But they certainly weren't on the grounds of 'Taste and Decency'. And I fail to see how Taste and Decency can be invoked to delete it now.

Now you have stopped ranting, FM, you have piqued my curiosity about just what *is* going on among the Powers Behind the Towers. I cannot believe I didn't ask that question myself. Colour me apathetic.

And I do care - ish, but mainly intellectually. The fire has gone out of my belly.

Ben

"Neither of you are, today. But what about tomorrow? Remember, YOU don't get a say in where the line is drawn. Saying "it doesn't affect me" is like saying you're not concerned about the effect of the MMR vaccine because you don't have kids, or you don't care about BSE because you're a vegetarian, or you don't care about American imperialist bullying because you don't live in Iran or North Korea. "I'm alright Jack" mentality is fine, until you are no longer alright, and nobody else cares because they know you never did."

Sorry, FB, but you're wrong there - saying "it doesn't affect me" is a statement of fact, and doesn't imply a lack of concern.
I don't think I said anywhere I don't care (in fact I think what has happened is unpleasant, both for reasons of uncertainty of where people stand, and particularly the 'author deleted this entry' part), but evidently I don't care as much as you do.

In any case, however much I may care, this looks to me very much like something that I can't do much about, and I have tired of pushing on immovable objects. However much noise is raised here, I'm not sure any of it would even reach someone who could change things.
One has to ask - how often in the past has a load of complaints about policy actually changed anything on h2g2, and how likely are they to make a difference this time.

One has to consider the position of h2g2 staff - however they feel, they can't give information out that the higher-ups wouldn't like them to, and however much noise is made here, it can be extraordinarily tricky for any of them to try and take that feedback further up.

My previous was a long-delayed simulpost, and a reply to Blues' 109

B

Apparently "possibly enabling people to break the law" comes under the Taste and Decency chapter of the Producer's Guidelines. Perhaps the idea of people breaking the law is distasteful to someone at the top

Yes Blues, I can see *why* the entry could be cause for concern, what bugs me is that it *wasn't*. The eds asked me to remoeve a throwaway ref to hot wiring cars, and I did. That was it.

In fact, here's the (very short) PR thread F90472?thread=184848 - A brief query from Z about the wisdom of having such info in the Guide, and that's it.

Lets be clear, I had no argument with the piece as it stood being in the Guide. It had been thorugh all the processes and had been passed as fit by an Editorial Team that has to be credited with having a some idea of what they are doing, at least with regard to applying House Rules.

What concerns me here, as with everybody else here is the retrograde removal of pieces that until last Friday had been through all the hoops and been in the guide for some considerable time.

If 'committing crime is distatsteful' is the best explanation for the disappearance of your piece, then we're all living in fantasy land, frankly.