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

and in regards to content on the front page
Is it less controversial to say
"Do you remember your first time?" than "Are you a Dick?"
yet "Do you remember your first time?" is still on the front page.

>>
This is Taff seeking attention
<<

So? How is that any different than anyone else starting a thread in Ask? I thought he acted with good intention- when the issue arose, he started a separate thread for discussion so the original thread wouldn't get derailed. Seems fair enough to me, and quite consistent with how the community has functioned for a long time.


>>It's part of the T&C's that we all signed up to: we give hootoo the right to use and edit our posts in a way they see fit without seeking further permission.
<<

Can you please post the bit where it says they can edit post? And a link please?

I've just been directed here from the other thread.

In the *real* world it's business and hard cash that decide how things are done.

The beeb never made any secret of their policies about language.

Noesis and Robbie may well object to naughty words like 'Dick' being on the front page. They are totally within their rights about that. If I paid hard cash for something..I'd expect a degree of influence and control of a web site.

They should front up and say what their vision is for this place.

My impression is that it will be something very safe..one could call it a "Family site'

I've seen people using that term here for what they want h2g2 to be. That's fine. It wouldn't be my

If a little word like dick can't be on the FP..I'd say the writing is pretty clearly on the wall.

>>
and in regards to content on the front page
Is it less controversial to say
"Do you remember your first time?" than "Are you a Dick?"
yet "Do you remember your first time?" is still on the front page.
<<

Not to mention 'Pimping your Personal Space' And those two things aren't even convos appearing on the FP, they're part of the actual FP content.

One person's humorous innuendo is another person's offense.

kea, the following is quoted from the copyright section of the Terms of Use page (A87523211)

"However, in contributing to h2g2, you grant us the right to publish and possibly edit any contribution you make to the site. In other words, anything you create on h2g2 is posted under the condition that you grant us a non-exclusive licence to distribute and edit the material in any way that we want, and in any media. As we may wish to distribute content on h2g2 in various formats over time, we need to be sure that we have the right to publish everything that is on the site"

>>So?<<

So he was being provocative and he provoked a response. Not an issue and didn't really merit another thread.

I really don't know why we are bothering discussing this until the money men front up and say what they want.

I think we own a 1/3 technically.

But then we the people of UK own 90% of Royal Bank of Scotland

(I'm contacting my dad later to explain how it is here..and what he thinks the *reality* is going to be.).

"Did the CEs put an explanation of the change in the post that was changed?"

Not that I can remember, which is what horrified me. How do I know I haven't got posts around h2g2 which aren't changed as I go round? How does anyone?

Yes, the t&c may say 'edit' that's to allow [unsuitable URL removed by Moderator] or starring out sweary marys, not to just hack away whenever they fancy.

This isn't - and never has been - about the use of naughty words or offence. It's about the overall impression of the website, the community, the language we choose to use, and the overall level of civility of the site.

And that point - civility and politeness - is absolutely crucial. What's the one thing that's been picked out time and time and time again by active researchers and by BBC staff alike? The civility. That's really what makes h2g2 stand out from other communities. We have disagreements, but it's very rare for things to get abusive. Very rare indeed. What we'd regard as a 'flame war' by h2g2 standards is minor compared to the rest of the interweb.

Of course, someone reading "are you a Dick?" on the front page will not cause that reputation to vanish in a puff of smoke. Nevertheless, the image we put forward of ourselves is important, especially at this particularly sensitive moment in time, when we're finding out whether we will sink, float, flounder, or swim post-BBC.

HI, I didn't seem him as being provocative, I just saw him being Taff and quite funny. The next thread about RF and muffins was just plain out provocative

Re the HRs, well obviously, but since when has that ever applied to posts? We've had posts hidden, had URLs removed, and in the past had some swear words starred out. But we've not had posts edited in the sense of changing words, and certainly not without that being acknowledged.

I'm not sure what your point is.


Mina, that's what I was afraid of. I can't believe that this writer's community now has CEs editing posts, and editing posts without even showing that they've been edited. And presumably not sending an email that they've been edited

*completely and utterly gobsmacked*

Today it was acknowledged in the thread - but not in the post itself.

And yes, we need an system that makes it impossible to edit posts without a message going up saying that it was done.

Until then we need to make darn sure that no one edits posts without posting.

>>I'm not sure what your point is<<

My point is folk are making mountains out of molehills.

>>But we've not had posts edited in the sense of changing words, and certainly not without that being acknowledged.<<

But it was acknowledged in the thread shortly after the change took place. *One* word was changed, a word that Taff specifically chose to be provocative and/or infantile. It's not like the meaning was changed, the edit left the meaning wholly intact.

>>
Of course, someone reading "are you a Dick?" on the front page will not cause that reputation to vanish in a puff of smoke. Nevertheless, the image we put forward of ourselves is important, especially at this particularly sensitive moment in time, when we're finding out whether we will sink, float, flounder, or swim post-BBC.
<<

That may very well be true Otto, and if that's the case then I probably don't have too much of a problem with it. But I think making changes without notifying or asking the community is going to undermine the community.

If we are now going to control what comes up on the FP to this extent, I would like to know the following:

- to what extent is this coming from Robbie and Noesis?

- what are the boundaries on this, and how will the community know?

- does the wider community have a say in this, or is it going to be decided inhouse by the Seniors?

- if the latter, what processes are being used?


I was involved in alot of conversations where this issue came up (how we appear to the world and how this may affect our viability), so it's not new to me. What is new is that we are taking action on it. I hadn't realised any decisions have been made, which is why it looks more like something that is evolving as we go. I think how this is being done needs clarification. I've been seeing other unrelated issues where the process is off as well.


I don't expect the Seniors to have to run every little thing past the community before they can move. But I do expect that over time we develop kick arse protocols for decision making and that that includes notifying the community. I don't see those things as happening yet. We have time to get this right, so I hope that we do.

>>
And yes, we need an system that makes it impossible to edit posts without a message going up saying that it was done.

Until then we need to make darn sure that no one edits posts without posting.
<<

I agree Z. But I also think that the whole issue of whether CEs and mods should be editing posts at all (beyond removing URLs and starring some swear words), needs to be decided by the community, not just the inhouse team.

>>
But it was acknowledged in the thread shortly after the change took place. *One* word was changed, a word that Taff specifically chose to be provocative and/or infantile. It's not like the meaning was changed, the edit left the meaning wholly intact.
<<

Ideally, with any post that is edited, it should be visible IN the edited post, that it's been edited. But there is a larger issue than what Taff raised, it's what Mina raised. Currently we have posts being changed, with no way of knowing that they have been changed. You're certainly entitled to see that as not an issue at all, but I have to admit that I'm surprised. I'm also wondering if that would be your response if someone had raised the issue who wasn't Taff, and had raised it in a more 'mature' fashion.

post 52.

In the case of the names and shortened names thread, the period of time that elapsed between the change being made and it being noticed was that short that it may well have been impossible to 'notify' anyone before it was done. The other case of modding I can't comment on, as I'm not aware of the details.

Can I suggest everyone take a deep breath and not let their paranoia run away with them? In the case of Taff's thread at least, it seems like mountains are being made out of molehills, with a twist of paranoia thrown in. We're *not* moving to a situation where anyone will be routinely editing our posts at random to change their meaning in some sinister conspiracy, although OTTO'S FEET SMELL OF ROTTING FRUIT.

There's a real danger of seeing one or two incidents as being indicative of some kind of greater trend or thin end of the wedge, when actually there's absolutely no reason to believe that.

"*Lurking and taking notes*"

Taking notes.... or taking names?

Editing posts in *any* way is a *very* bad idea. They should either stand or fail.

Imagine a hypothetical legal case where a Researcher claims he was defamed, abused, harrassed, etc and sought damages for his 'distress'.

How could h2g2 ever prove what did, or did-not take place? You can provide all the server-logs you like showing what was edited, who-by and why, but a clever defense will simply argue that if you edit posts to make them more agreeable, then you can edit server-logs in a similar fashion.

We have a community (who previously would have testified on oath that posts were *never* edited) that will now say under questioning "Er, Yes M'lud, I believe posts can be subject to amendment".

It's a legal minefield. Posts should stand or fail.

Ok.

I have lots to say here.

But first I have a question. I think the fact that [Post title edited] was left out was an error.

Do you think the editors should go back and put it in?

I'd prefer it see it put back and starred out.Although I don't think it broke the House Rules myself, if it's been decided then it should be dealt with in a manner that can be consistent. Not sure how much better it would look on the Front Page with 'Edited by Editors' on it.