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

hi sef
hope i'm not intruding, but i've finally gotten to the point i felt i had to stop by. i've been dabbling in the conversations about improving the peer review process and several comments you've made have piqued my interest. i decided to come here to ask you about them instead of steering current threads even further off course than they already are.

you've made several mentions of 'bad rules' and 'hidden rules'. you've alluded to site editorship not being forthright in their dealings with the community, and accused them outright of lying, or maybe you said you felt to promote certain aspects of the site made you feel like you were lying, i've read so much backlog today it's all starting to melt together. you've also made quite a few mentions of 'pet researchers' or people to whom you don't feel the rules apply. your comments are designed to make a reader think that the editorship is specifically singling you out and prohibiting you from participating onsite like any other user would.

as i've been away for a few days and i'm just catching up on the backlog i've only just discovered that you've been removed from the volunteer schemes you were associated with, apparently over an incident with a new researcher (who didn't appear to be new, i peeked in on that but didn't get too deep into it). but it seems that there is much more to all this than what's been mentioned.

since your assumed position directly contradicts the majority of dealings i've seen with this site in the 3 1/2 years i've been around i was hoping you might shed some light on how it is you feel you've been wronged.

i guess on the most basic level, i came by to leave a message because you seem incredibly angry and i'd like to know why.

broe

I've just posted more on the editorial feedback thread someone else started on the CA/graphics issue. I will probably get yikesed for telling the truth (even though I've provided some of the proof) just as I was thrown out of the groups using a variety of excuses but really for catching the staff out in lies etc.

I've been variously ignored, libelled (in the semi-public Yahoo forum by a Researcher and staff), sent harrassing/abusive/threatening emails by staff and abruptly chucked out of the groups for spurious reasons. There seems to be a lot of "ageism" around on h2g2. Certain researchers are bullies and only concerned with power/winning rather than quality or truth. The staff have their favourites and support them indiscriminately. Nobody bothers to check the truth (in PR or CA group). The staff are hypocritical and inconsistent in their application of the rules. I regard their breaking of criminal law as far worse than merely breaking HouseRules - which I hadn't even done owing to the fact that they were incapable of writing them to say what they claimed they did say or wanted them to say (but that is a slightly separate issue). Even the technical issues of breaking volunteer group rules are in ways where others, including the staff, have frequently done the same or worse. I regard their behaviour as despicable.

It isn't just me. I've seen other people bullied and intimidated by these same people using the same tactics. The difference is that I refuse to be an easy victim. I've stood up for some of the others even when they were too cowardly to stand up for me. In one argument which should have been about the facts of graphics formats was made personal by one of the bullies who was clearly in the wrong by any objective measure but turned on all those who were in the right. After that the others were more reluctant to speak out. One emailed me privately. Another was foolish enough to get caught posting on my space. There was a slightly abusive message from an eaves-dropping member of staff as a result - which scared that CA off. He has now resigned. It also attracted the attention of the bully, who subscribed to both that thread and a totally harmless/irrelevant one which just happened to be with another CA who was not really involved.

All this is probably much more than you wished to know, but you probably shouldn't have asked.

actually, none of that was what i wanted to know, that was a recap of everything you've said in various conversations on the subjects. but upon thinking about it, you probably couldn't or wouldn't tell me anyway.

what i meant was that i see you've repeatedly said you've been wronged, but your accusations do not constitute proof. as i said before, the experiences you've claimed to have directly contradict other experiences i've had or witnessed. that's not to say i've never seen the editorship make mistakes, i have and i've seen them rectified. but i've never seen an instance of the editorship specifically discriminating against any one researcher. of course there have been differences of opinion, but i would certainly hope that one would not see a difference of opinion as open discrimination because they're not at all the same thing.

so i guess what i'm looking for is proof. somewhere you could point me that says 'the rules say this, but they've prohibited me from doing that exact thing' or 'this particular researcher did this thing and it was okay but i did this exact same thing and it was removed' or 'this particular researcher is dead wrong about .... but used some assumed power to get their way anyway'. i'm pretty sure you won't be able to do this, especially not here, but there's an email link on my page if you would care to enlighten me.

it's not that i don't believe you, i generally believe everyone has the conviction of their own beliefs (if that made sense). it's just that i'd like to see the facts and judge for myself. i've usually found that these things are bourne of misunderstanding. i've also found that negativity doesn't generally harbor change. but you seem to be quite an astute individual with potentially a lot to offer the guide, and i'm concerned that you're so angry.

i hope i haven't offended you

Much of the proof is on the Yahoo CA group so you are not going to be able to see it. I gave links to some of the other proof on site. Perhaps you missed them once the italics insisted on breaking up the conversation into separate threads. The BBC claim their emails are private. I know this wouldn't hold up in court and Hoovooloo claims it wouldn't even hold up on h2g2. So I'll see what I've got to cut and paste at some point. As you say though, there's little point in duplication so it may be more likely to be on one of the other threads than here.

It is not just about me being wronged though. The staff have been lying to pretty much all new CAs from the moment they arrive in the group and query the first stupid rule. It happens repeatedly simply because the rules are stupid and the guideline pages are badly written. I started telling new ones the truth as the questions arose once I'd collected enough of the proof. That's mostly what you'll see I've listed in the other thread - the stupid rules, the excuses used, the examples of why the rules aren't even followed if you happen to be the right person.

If the first answer wasn't what you wanted to know then it's probably because you didn't ask the right question in the first place. I'll look again after the backlog. I'm not going to email you though, just as I didn't feel Whoami was a suitable person to email.

that's quite alright i just didn't want you to think i was looking for you to point fingers on site.

i'll try to go back thru some of the backlog... altho i've been neglecting some other things just to keep up as it is so i don't know how far i'll get.

thanks for trying to accomodate my query tho!