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

Hi Ben.

We wonder if it would be possible for you to expand on something you said in the Lifetime Suspension thread? (We would have posted this question there, but it might exacerbate the reaction to Playboy Reporter's posting, which wouldn't be a good thing... )

Playboy Reporter said: "The italics are the very people that have done the most work on h2g2 - h2g2 'belongs' to them and h2g2 could not survive without them. The italics therefore get to decide how the website is run."

You replied: "I am really glad you put that 'belongs' in inverted commas. You are right, h2g2 probably couldn't survive without them. But it does not follow from that that they get to decide how the website is run. This website now belongs (no inverted commas) to the BBC. It is the legal ownership of the site that grants the right to decide how the website is run. No moral rights here, just legal ones. The italics are employees of the BBC. They have a lot of influence over the site, and absolute responsibility for it. But that is it."

If we might summarise your points as follows:

1. The Editors do not get to decide how the website is run.
2. The BBC owns the site, so they get to decide how the website is run.
3. The Editors have a lot of influence over the site.
4. The Editors have absolute responsibility for the site.

If this is an accurate summary (if not, then apologies and perhaps you could clarify your point), then could you explain:

* How does point 1 sit with points 3 and 4? Isn't "running the site" the same as influencing it heavily and having absolute responsibility for it? Perhaps we've got different definitions of "running the site" - what do you mean by "running the site" if it's more than this?

* The Editors are employees of the BBC who have been tasked by the BBC with running the site in all its aspects, so doesn't point 2 imply that in fact the Editors do run the site, on behalf of the BBC, in the same way that they ran the site on behalf of a board of investors called The Digital Village?

Perhaps you could clarify your reasoning? As is stands it appears that the point you're making is that the Editors do not run h2g2, and we can't help but disagree! But it's possible that this isn't the point you were making, and as your posting was a commentary on our jobs, we're very interested to hear more about it!

Thanks.

Hi Italics,

Thanks for dropping by, thanks for raising the question, and thanks for raising it in my space.

The gap that I am pointing to is the gap where you have to negotiate arbitration rules, language rules, rules about what entries are and are not acceptable.

Now I was only a user of h2g2 from July or June 2000, and I was not involved in any of the civic issues before then, apart from the occasional flare-up in the God and Cunnilingus threads. So I cannot compare before with after very accurately.

However, it is clear that you are no longer the final arbiters of what happens here. You have to get the entries like masturbation, cunnilingus and the short guide to short words passed for publication by going through an internal bbc process. You have to impose stricter moderation rules now that you are here at the bbc, and if I read Mark's post in my 'should I stay or should I go' thread correctly, you had to negotiate some fairly hefty 'consessions' on things like user-names and topic drift.

So I would say that "running the site" is NOT the same as "influencing it heavily and having absolute responsibility for it".

I agree that I have used terms pretty losely here, (I was typing in haste) and we could slice and dice the semantics forever and with no good result. So thank you for asking me to re-define my position rather than just attacking what you saw I had said.

Basically - as I understand it - you have control over the day to day stuff, but you are doing it within policy limitations which you can influence but which you cannot control. I assume you have been given metrics by which the site is deemed to be 'successful', and it is your jobs on the line if the site is deemed to have 'failed', or if the site causes the bbc some massive embarrassment. (By publishing nude pictures of Christine Hamilton, for example).

I think the key sentance where the ambiguity lies is "But it does not follow from that that they get to decide how the website is run". When I said "how the website is run" I was referring to those policy decisions about moderation, cunnilingus, and topic drift. I think I would also take out the sentance "No moral rights here, just legal ones" because the beeb, and you as part of the beeb, clearly do have moral obligations as well as rights. Post in haste, repent at leisure...

That paragraph should probably have read: "I am really glad you put that 'belongs' in inverted commas. You are right, h2g2 probably couldn't survive without them. But it does not follow from that that they get to decide THE POLICIES WHICH DICTATE how the website is run. This website now belongs (no inverted commas) to the BBC. It is the legal ownership of the site that grants the right to decide how the website is run. No moral rights here, just legal ones. The italics are employees of the BBC. They have a lot of influence over the site, and absolute responsibility for it ON A DAY TO DAY BASIS. But that is it."

Hope that clarifies my position. I am perfectly happy to post the re-cast paragraph in the Lifetime Suspension thread without making a big deal of it, if you would like to see it there.

Kind regards

a hasty-poster called Ben

PS - I do feel that there has been a change in your collective style in the last couple of weeks, it seems to be working, and I welcome it. And posting this conversation here is a good example of what I am talking about. Keep it up!

Thanks for the response Ben.

It would be great if you could re-post your clearer version to the Lifetime Suspension thread, but could you consider the following points first?

***

"But it does not follow from that that they get to decide THE POLICIES WHICH DICTATE how the website is run."

We get to decide the vast majority of policies that dictate how the website is run, so this still isn't *quite* fair. The only policies which we don't decide are the general BBC editorial policies (which are available to the public), and matters of the law; pretty much everything else to do with running the site is decided by us - even resources are allocated based on the plans we put forward.

Perhaps saying the following would be more accurate? "But it does not follow from that that they get to decide *all* the policies which dictate how the website is run."

***

"They have a lot of influence over the site, and absolute responsibility for it ON A DAY TO DAY BASIS. But that is it."

Unfortunately, that is *not* it! We have absolute responsibility for the future development of the site, too, among other things. To say that the Editors' job is simply to run the site on a day-to-day basis is simply not true.

***

We'll be back tomorrow - be interested to see your comments. And finally:

"PS - I do feel that there has been a change in your collective style in the last couple of weeks, it seems to be working, and I welcome it. And posting this conversation here is a good example of what I am talking about. Keep it up!"

Funnily, our posting style has only changed to us using the first person plural; we've been this polite and formal when posting 'official' stuff ever since we joined the BBC. Amazing what difference a different name and a pluralisation makes, but if it makes you happy, all well and good.

Okay - I'll ponder your comments, and post a clarification. (I am curious as to why this is as important to you as it obviously is, please let me know).

You say "we've been this polite and formal when posting 'official' stuff ever since we joined the BBC. Amazing what difference a different name and a pluralisation makes"

Yup. Sure is.

I have been doing a lot of work recently on roles, interpersonal structures, boundaries, territories and permissions. And differentiating your official roles from your personal ones makes an amazing difference. Just like Magic. Strange, huh!

***B

Thanks Ben.

You said: "I am curious as to why this is as important to you as it obviously is, please let me know."

Say you were managing a restaurant, and when it was busy you also happened to help out with the other waiting staff. I come in to the restaurant, order my meal, and see you running in and out serving meals and taking orders, so I proclaim to all the customers: "See that woman? She does the waitressing, but *that is it*!" How much damage would that do to your standing as the manager of that restaurant if you *didn't* clear up the misunderstanding and let it lie?

It's good for the Community if they understand how decision-making works on h2g2, it's useful if they know what we do, and it's useful if they understand how we work within the BBC, but you were only describing a small part of our roles, and ending with "But that is it!", which made it sound like you *knew* that this was the case, when it wasn't. Unfortunately the only people who know exactly what we do is us... but we're always happy to explain our roles!

Hope this answers your question; we're always trying to clear up any inaccuracies about us or the site, especially when they are expressed as fact - and this is something that's especially important in a thread populated by people who disect on every single word we write there.

Makes sense to me. Always happy to help.

As you know, I *do* try to be part of the solution - (whatever that may be!)

All the best

***B