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

Or it was censored before we joined the company (quite possible).

Note that if anything causes offence to anyone on site, we remove it. It's not censorship, it's the way we operate... but it would be good to find the thread, if you can, because conversations like this are difficult without being specific.

I've found the thread. It was removed from the Guide, and I'll try to find out why.

More soon...

The conversation 'my first blow job' was deleted from Magnolia Thunderpussy's homepage at the same time as a number of other conversations or stories of a sexually explict nature. A few Researchers complained to me about these entries and so they were reviewed and, in this case, removed.

If someone complains to me about the suitability of a posting, as they did in this case, we do have to review it and use our judgement on what is suitable public forum material. Obviously some countries or areas have laws and traditions that are either more liberal or more censorial than others, so we have to look at all postings from a global perspective.

In this instance I looked at the conversations and considered how they would be graded from a film censors point of view. In the UK any TV programme or cinema film showing an erect male penis is not seen to be suitable for a public film or TV audience. They wouldn't been granted an 18 or adult certificate. Although the stories were not of the 'Debbie does Dallas' heavy porn category, they did contain quite a few allusions to erect penises, and it was for this reason that I deleted the conversations.

Tthis isn't from any desire to be censorial. We're a liberal lot here, but at the moment we do have a sizable proportion of children in the audience, and we don't have closed or private forums, which would enable us to screen material from younger eyes.

Okay, now that I have read (re-read) the terms and conditions and the postings here from Peta and Mark I have to admit that it seems like everything is okay so far (= in accordance with those terms and conditions) and so I rest my case. End of story.

One thing, though: Mark says "It's not censorship, it's the way we operate...". You know you are wrong, Mark. Of course it IS censorship. However understandable it is, you have to call it by its proper name. I know what I am talking about, being an editor myself. I have to censor too because of (others) rules and regulations and laws and Bob knows what. Calling it "editing" or "ways of operating" are only euphimisms.

Love & Peace

hear, hear, I'm afraid...

... though it doesn't bother me. Does it bother you, Mark?
Would the term censorship possibly bother you because it would make you and your fellows censors?

Come to think of it, you're right about using the proper term, and the proper term is 'censorship'. I guess the point I was making, though obviously not well enough, is that the concept of censorship is a terribly negative one, bringing up images of political propaganda and paranoid grannies protecting the morals of a generation they don't even begin to understand... whereas h2g2's censorship is only done if we're asked to by Researchers to remove material, and we feel they have a point.

So it's not censorship at source, but reactive censorship... but censorship nonetheless, and you're right.

As Peta said, we're very liberal here, and the actual content of the 'offending' threads didn't bother us one bit. However, we're not necessarily typical of the Community, and we have to be receptive to the opinions of the whole Community, not just the inhabitants of our ivory tower.

I am relieved. The way you put it is proof enough that we do not disagree

hear hear!

One of the things I really like about H2G2 is that it seems to be inhabited mainly by grownups, or the bits that I lurk around in, do, anyway. This is not an ageist thing, the researchers who tell us they are 15 or so are as grownup as the rest of us, and more than some. What is a "grownup"? - basically someone who accepts the consequences of their actions, and takes comments as advice and not as a personal attack. Perhaps by its very nature the peer-review system positively selects for this kind of personality.

So... I don't like to disrupt the general agreement of the last few postings, but I have a question for Mark and Peta:

Mark, you say "we have to be receptive to the opinions of the whole Community" Now I actually think that you guys are doing a good job, and it is one that I would certainly not like to do, but what happens when the community is split?

For example the "God" entry. I have not read it or the postings there for two or three weeks or so, but it seems that you are unwilling to authorise it because it may offend peoples' religious beliefs. Has it? Have people actually said to you "I find this entry offensive?"

And why are their religous beliefs more important than my belief in free speech? You have got a double bind, because I am offended that there is a reluctance to authorise, and "they" will be offended if you do. Sorry.

On a complete side issue - did anyone hear Peter White interview Larry Flint on Radio 4 about a year ago. Peter White is a perceptive and shrewd interviewer, but he did not ask the one question I wanted the answer to. Is Larry Flint a pornographer because he believes in freedom of speech; or does he beleive in freedom of speech because he is a pornographer? In other words if he had been living in say Japan, where very brutal pornography is much more accepted, would he have been a pornographer or a polictical activist?

Sorry about the side issue - But I am genuinely interested in the "God" story.

Good points, AgcB. Let's see...

The issue with the God entry isn't censorship: if it was, that entry wouldn't be in the Guide, but it still is, at A252316.

The issue here is one to do with quality, and we simply don't think that the entry has the required quality for us to give it the stamp of approval. The writing style is great, but reading it as a layman there are too many inconsistencies and assumptions in it for us to approve it. I believe that with a sensitive subject like this we must set the quality hurdle slightly higher than normal, and this entry doesn't get there.

In the thread on the Peer Review page are lots of suggested improvements from both us and from the Community. It appears that very few of these changes have actually been incorporated, which is a shame. Perhaps the author has lost interest because of the lack of instant approval, which would be a pity, but that's no reason for us to say 'Oh, go on then, let's approve it or he'll never write anything again.'

I wish we could recommend it, but although it's a good read, the content is not up to scratch. It's not censorship, it's not us avoiding the issue, and it's certainly not us dissing free speech. It's us trying to ensure top quality in the Guide, and that's all there is to it.

Anyway, Anna is going to go to the Peer Review page to post more of her findings there, so it's probably best that this conversation continues there... unless you still this is an example of us censoring things, in which case we have a point to argue, expecially as we haven't removed any of it, a rather essential part of censorship.

It's true that it isn't censorship. But there is still the possibility of editorial bias. And isn't that related, if you take a broader view? I mean, both actions have the same ultimate goals.

I would agree that the God article is being held to a higher standard. In fact, I'm unable to guess whether the entry will ever get a 'stamp of approval' no matter how much time and effort is devoted to it. My opinion is that this should not be the case. While I agree that any entry on God is bound to cause controversy, I think h2g2 is missing the mark both on its own goals (as being a Guide to Everything) and on the main point of the entry itself by putting the subject on a pedestal, as it were.

I know that h2g2 is only reacting to the popular controversy. After all, h2g2 prefers to let its users police themselves wherever possible. But if the entry is bound to cause controversy no matter what the content, then isn't there a point at which you go with the best you have? After all, the glory of h2g2 is that anyone who balks at the wording will be able to express their disagreement and/or promote their own views on God immediately.

The God entry has been submitted and rejected several times and in several different forms. I saw it a couple of rejections ago, and can vouch that the entry has almost entirely changed since I first viewed it. My own suggestions were incorporated long ago, and are now partially washed away in light of yet more suggestions. I've considered every version I've seen well-written, certainly above the standards set for most other Approved/Edited Entries.

In many cases, it would be impossible to submit to all the suggested improvements given by researchers, editorial volunteers, and paid h2g2 staffers. It is only natural that everyone has their own opinion, and people have trouble coming to some sort of agreement. That is part of the nature of God as a social phenomenon. If we all agreed on what he/she/it was, there would be no need to take the broad cultural view that the God entry currently takes.

In many cases, people are asking for changes that preclude one another. In other cases, people have asked for things which would result in a more biased entry that wouldn't represent the whole Earth -- because they themselves are biased and feel perfectly comfortable being so where God is concerned. In yet other cases, requests have been made that would result in the entry coming out at book length or greater. Everyone wants *their* view of God represented, and everyone wants *their* view to be treated fairly and to get a fair amount of representation in the entry. Fine. But can that really be done, when we all disagree on what and how much is fair?

Somewhere among the endless wash of criticism, kudos, biased entreaties, and occasional blathering nonsense, there are probably useful suggestions that could be followed. But which are which? Of course, we all disagree on that too. And there's the rub. The author is probably feeling exhaustion from trying to reach consensus where there is none to be had, while still retaining some sense of authorial integrity. I mean, how long has it been on this entry now. Eleven months of back and forth? How many hundreds of suggestions would you guess there have been?

I tried very hard a few months back to revise the entry, thinking that *surely* I could make it less controversial. I spent something like 20 hours on it, and finally scratched the project. There was almost nothing I could say that wouldn't offend someone somehow or raise the specter of bias, or which wouldn't seem unclear to someone else, or wouldn't need clarification in the form of numerous references to outside works, or wouldn't need endless more work to come out with anything at all linear or coherent. Until I tried it, I had no idea how ridiculously hard it was.

You just can't please everyone. So at some point, h2g2 must decide. Are you going to have an imperfect entry on God, or are you going have none at all? If it's the former, for heaven's sake get it over with. Stop waiting for a consensus that will never happen. If you really believe that the entry is great but needs certain changes, then make them yourself and present the bloody thing to the public, where we will argue bitterly over the contents no matter what you do.

If it's the former... fine. But do let us know when we can all stop arguing. And I'll make a bonus suggestion. You can get around the whole problem of glaringly not having an entry on God in a compendium of entries supposedly about everything by putting up the following:

God

Someone or something responsible for creating the Universe as mankind understands it.

Some people claim to know something about this God person.

We don't.

Nice one Fragilis

Lol

Well put, Fragilis! My boy certainly does work in mysterious ways, doesn't he!

now THAT's blasphemy, mama-god.

I think I'm going to have another read of that article though.

Something to ponder, purely as a matter of philosophical debate....

"Note that if anything causes offence to anyone on site, we remove it. It's not censorship, it's the way we operate..."

ALL censorship in the world arises because it caused offense to someone, somewhere. Books are banned because they offend someone, normally someone who is a member of the community. "Relax" by Frankie Goes To Hollywood was (I've heard) banned by the BBC because it offended someone.

Whether it is a good or bad thing has to be determined by the majority. Even that is not fair to everyone (and one of the things the Founding Fathers here in the States feared was a Tyranny of the Majority). However, we live in a society, and therefore need some kind of rules to keep some semblance of order.

Even here in the U.S., where Freedom of Speech is held so dear to us that we sometimes allow it over the bounds of common sense (by letting the KKK march, for example) there are limits. You can't yell "Fire" in a movie theater if there is no fire. You can't slander someone's reputation with falsehoods.

Censorship itself is not innately a bad thing. However (and here's where I finally get to my point) there will always be people who are as offended by the censorship as are the people who are offended by the item being censored.

However, this is a private site, and the managers have the right to post, or not post, material as they see fit. True censorship can only be done by governing bodies. As long as there is someone, somewhere, who is willing to let someone's voice be heard publicly, they are not truly being censored.

*steps off soapbox, leaves room*

What would The PTB do if a ultra old testement believer arrived at the site, citing all of Leviticus - All gays should be put to death, allowing slavery, death to blasphemers, not touching women during their periods etc, and insisted that a huge number of entries offended him. Would these entries be removed? Or would the reseacher?

Just a thought.

CH

Does become a ticklish problem, doesn't it? We could all avoid controversial issues such as religion and sex and politics and stick to safe subjects like recipes here. But even that might not work. I'm sure some animal rights activists could reasonably be deeply offended by a recipe for beef stew, for example.

*sigh* So difficult to try to please everyone, isn't it, Mark? Don't envy you your position one bit.

Heh! I work for a Government body (much in the news this week) that used to have a Policy Implementation Note (PIN) on how to arrange a meeting, in which it stated we should avoid controversial meals such as veal and venison, as well as heavy meals such as steak and kidney pie - as it sends people to sleep in the afternoon.

So as you get rid of the flood water from your house be pleased we spent YOUR money wisely on such policy instead of stupid things like flood defence.

BTW for legal reasons - the note was writen in by one of our bodies predessesor bodies and I'm sure the current mangement have removed it and condem it ever being issued

CH

A perfect example of just how weird our society has become is that here in the U.S., buildings cannot put large manger scenes out at Christmastime. You see, they might offend someone who is not Christian.

Well, while I was raised Catholic, I no longer subscribe to the whole thing (though I respect those who do). And guess what? I'm offended that they DON'T put up religious signs of the season. To me it's all part of the holiday.

Look at it this way. Should I be offended when my Jewish neighbors light a Menorah? Of course not.

I think some people spend way too little time living life, and way too much time being offended!!

Having said all that, the editors of this site are faced with the issue of deciding what is appropriate for a web page that attracts people of all ages. By and large, from what I've seen, the forums mostly police themselves, and the PTB have only to step in on occasion when someone gets a little too heavy-handed. I think they've all done a pretty good job with what could be a tough assignment.