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

Bel - I would like to get their opinions on this - they might have some useful ideas.

>>then someone can use them to taunt the BBC mods.

Interesting Ben. Even though the list of words has now been modified by NPL? Does that mean, theoretically, that if we did want to publish the list we would have to make a completely new list (and how would be bbc know if some of the words were the same?), or does it meant that we can never publish the words as long as we use the software?

*looks agast*, totally floored by that Bel and I am now walking away from the computer

Please don't show the reason in the post - if someone unintentionally does somethiing wrong that's not fair to point fingers at them.

I thought for a while banned words were on h2g2... yep, here you go!
F85680?thread=175117&post=1915667#p1915667

I'm not trying to work against them. Yes I guess I could have applied, but I didn't think it would suit h2g2 to have me back. This way I can give my opinion. I didn't bring up the emails I had until it happened to come up, then yes, I think it's a serious issue.

To be blunt, if I'd applied, I would have wanted to run everything myself, would have argued the toss with everyone, got upset, upset everyone else, had a sulk and flounced about. Believe me, it's easier this way.

And IF everyone but a few people agreeing (a Small But Vocal Minority perhaps) meant h2g2 just went on its merry way ignoring the voices who really just want to make things better then we wouldn't be h2g2. In the end, things may not go the way we want to, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be allowed to put our points across, just because most people aren't making a fuss.

This post has been removed.

"Ictoan have you been reading the backlog? Because posts *have* had content edited."

Except that's not really the case, is it? The post to which you refer had, according to the report given in the backlog, been edited to include quotes and a reference to source as it was copied from elsewhere as a temporary measure pending a final decision which was to remove it.

Not the most elegant solution but not what is implied by stating 'content has been edited' and certainly not a case of altering the author's meaning.

Really, nothing to get stressed about really.

Mina, that's a good point about whether to show the reason or not. For clarity here's what Ben said:

>> so that if a post is edited by a mod then the fact it has been edited, and possibly the reason (copyright, defamation, profanity, etc) should be shown in the post. <<

I think if a URL is removed, then it just needs to say something like [unsuitable URL removed], and the reasons can be in the email that goes to the researcher.

Swear words that can be, can be starred out.

Beyond that, I'm still not sure that posts should be edited, so is there a need for an explanation?

So there are two things there:

- what should be edited?

- and when edited, what should be shown in the edited post?

Now I know B'el is a CE, I'll comment on this:

"But instead of working with those who took it on, they do their damnedest to work against them, stir up the threads - and we comply?"

Is that an offical comment? You are not happy that people on h2g2 are querying something they feel is not going quite right? Has that not been how h2g2 ran for most of its history? You've been here long enough to know the Eds have always tried to keep a dialogue going, it's only the last few years we've had sod all assistance from the Eds.

I'm worried a CE is happy to announce they think people are 'stirring'.

>> a Small But Vocal Minority



People, do you want me to spend this evening improving the way the mod tools, the guru tools, and the Eds and Artists tools work? Or do you want me to pay attention to this, and put it off until Wednesday?

Serious question. Do you want detailed and considered answers in this thread (bearing in mind I am not a CE) but for us to be nowhere nearer the technical fixes you've all mentioned? Or do you want me to work on the technical fixes and pass the requirements all nicely designed up to the Tech Team?

Ben

Part of being behind the scenes is to prioritise. We don't know the mess tools are in, how can we possibly decide for you?

Ictoan, the other example I gave was where a sentence or phrase was removed from a post, and there is no way to tell afterwards that that post has been edited.

Adding words and quotations marks *is* editing a post.

If you feel ok about having your posts edited for content, that's fine. But for those of us that don't, then it bears some discussion.

That sounds sharper than I thought it did or meant it to, so not sure is enough. How about and

I took the in the spirit it was intended, Mina. But and never go amiss.

I'm enthralled by this thread.

B

Ben

I have done so little work today because of this issue that I am going to have to work until 1am+ tonight, so i don't think we can work on the tools.

>>Is that an offical comment? You are not happy that people on h2g2 are querying something they feel is not going quite right? Has that not been how h2g2 ran for most of its history? You've been here long enough to know the Eds have always tried to keep a dialogue going, it's only the last few years we've had sod all assistance from the Eds.

I'm worried a CE is happy to announce they think people are 'stirring'.<<

Official comments come from the Community editors account, and will never be from me. I'm really fed up that just because I am *one* among six CEs and MANY other volunteers I am not allowed to voice my opinion, or have to post a disclaimer to each post.

I don't know either Ben, not knowing what exactly you are fixing. I would say fix things that allow us the premove status quo, and that gives us time to sort process and protocols. But I suspect it's more complicated than that.


*

In all the work I've done this year (and previously) on community issues, including in Magrathea, and helping as a Community Volunteer, I have never ceded the right as a researcher to discuss community issues onsite. Nor have I ever signed up to the idea that once we moved that the running of the community would be left solely to the Senior Volunteers and that the community would have no say.

btw, Bel, the SVs *have* the power (at least until the next election). You can actually do what you want, irrespective of what I or anyone else says here in Ask. Your legal mandate comes from NPL, not from the community. So there's no need to worry really about us. If you feel good about what you are doing, then stand your ground. But please don't expect me to shut up. What I am doing is what I've always done on this site, and the fact that we are now community run doesn't change that.

If what is happening here is being taken personally by the SVs, that's understandable and I think that's for the SVs to deal with internally. Yes there has been some strong stuff said, but I haven't seen anyone throwing abuse at the SVs, nor has the tone been one of destruction.

Ooh gosh even more to say:

I'm going to repsond to people one by one:



Peanut said:


editing in the short term would be done to star the odd swear word but mostly used for broken links if posts were unsuitable they would be hidden

--

That was the policy.

BUT in this situation it didn't apply really did it? because we didn't think that they're be a situation where the post was fine, and the title was fine, but we didn't want it showing up on the front page, because it looked like a flame war.

If we'd starred it out then 'Are you a d**k?' Would have looked just as bad on the front page as 'Are you a dick'.

If we'd removed it, then that would have been a bit unfair as it wasn't against the house rules, and it would have spoilt the enjoyment of the threads. That wasn't something I would have been comfortable with as it was way OTT.

I don't think that there was an easy answer to 'what should have been done' other than 'leave it as it is'.

When we wrote them I hadn't thought that there would be a post that was ok in a thread, and not ok on the front page.

Bel, I don't have any problem with you voicing your opinion even though you are a CE. I think mostly it's clear now that unless one says so explicitly, that posts from personal accounts are from the researcher rather than the CE.

However, there are implications for posting one's opinions, where those opinions are about the CE's job. That's inevitable I'm afraid. As frustrating as that is, it's also a choice. Some of us chose to stay outside the SVs specifically so that we could speak without those conflicts of interest. We gave up one kind of power to do so. That you chose to be a CE is admirable, and personally I am grateful that enough people stepped up to the plate, because otherwise we would be in deep shit right now, instead of just bogged down.

Z and I are about to disappear into the vortex that is the evening commute in Edinburgh. I will buy petrol. When we get home, I will re-read this thread, work on the tool designs, cook a meal and prepare my NaJoPoMo post for tomorrow. Z will research the causes and treatment of stroke.

Remind me again why I thought this was a good idea.