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

I'm not a particularly happy bunny at the moment. I'm an annoyed bunny, an offended bunny. And a bunny who should know better and should just let this lie, but who has settled for a journal post as a kind of pretend middle ground. Aristotle said that the great souled man (and, presumably, bunny) should ignore petty slights, but fully avenge serious ones. Well, no doubt my soul is a work in progress.

I wrote an edited guide article recently, and at the time of writing its on the front page. It's on the 'covert stammer', a subject that I'm reasonably well qualified to write about. Until a few years ago, I was so 'covert' that I rarely acknowledged having a stammer or discussing it. Instead, all my energies went into hiding it. For reasons that I won't go into here, I decided to be much more open about it. I thought about writing an edited guide entry, but I was going to do so under a sock puppet account - probably called 'Guy Dentry' - to be created for that purpose. Why was I going to do that? Well, it's because no-one on h2g2 knows that 'Otto' has a stammer, nor could deduce it from anything I've said here in the ten+ years in which I've been a h2g2 researcher. I've got a bit of a soft spot for the 'Otto' persona, and I wasn't at all sure I wanted to associate that entry with it because I don't want to change the way in which Otto is perceived. I don't want Otto to be thought any less of (as can happen in real life) and I don't want Otto to get any sympathy votes (ditto).

But I did it anyway, and I'm glad I did. Comments in the EGWW and PR were as rigorous, fair, and constructively critical as for everything else I've ever submitted. In particular, comments illustrated very well a point that I made in the entry - that 1% of adults have a stammer, so everyone will know someone. Indeed, we have a number of current researchers who do or did stammer to a greater or lesser extent. Their contribution was particularly important, as my experience is of one type of stammer, and a very mild version of it. So it appeared on the front page, with a nice illustration drawn by Rosie and carefully sub-edited by Lanza.

And then someone (who I won't name, as it's now gone) decided to post a comment that consisted of a subject line praising the entry, but written in a pretend-stammering style. I suppose it was the ultimate back-handed compliment. It was followed by this smile in the body of the comment.

The best that can be said about this is that it was crassly insensitive and inappropriate, and even insulting. If it was intended as humour, it was spectacularly poorly judged, given remarks made in the entry about how hurtful it can be to mimic someone else's stammer. The worst that could be said about it is that it could have been a deliberate and malicious act, calculated to upset, belittle and offend. I don't think it takes a great deal of empathy to realise that that entry is an intensely personal bit of writing, and that while I'm open to constructive criticism and comment and correction (as always), a modicum of sensitivity is in order.

I wasn't sure how to respond. Should I take this as a 'joke', and was I in danger of over-reacting or being over-sensitive? In the entry, I discuss my view of stammering in popular culture (including the way that its played it for laughs), and I worry about being open to charges of special pleading or double standards if I find myself po-faced, condemning any use of a stammer for humour, given some of the other topics for comedy that I clearly seem to regard as relatively fair game. So I didn't respond, and went back to enjoying the festive season.

Some other researchers (who I also won't name) felt this post was inappropriate and said so. One researcher argued that the post was most likely at the more charitable end of the possible interpretations of intention that I mentioned earlier. Maybe. I certainly hope so. Someone (not me) clearly felt strongly enough to 'yikes' the initial post, the moderators agreed, and presumably because it was the subject line that was the problem, the whole conversation has now gone.

So why am I bringing all this up again if it's gone? I'm not entirely sure, and I'm certainly not sure that this post is a good idea, or even has any point to it at all. I'm not after sympathy or support, and I'm not after a witch-hunt against the researcher responsible - though I think a bit of reflection on that researcher's part and an apology are both well and truly in order. I fear, though, that the response will be more likely to be more whinging about the unfairness of moderation than any kind of reflection about appropriate behaviour.

I don't even know if the researcher responsible will even read this - probably not. I guess I just wanted to register in some small way that I'd seen the comment, and that I thought it was inappropriate at best, and offensive at worst. Not just to me personally, as someone who put a lot of myself into that entry - but to anyone who might find the entry (via google) who also has a stammer. Those readers should not be confronted by mockery in the comments.

Otto, I saw that comment, and cannot say much here, but action was taken, I can assure you of that much.

Thank you for this post, it helps me enormously to defend the actions of the moderators, who are sometimes held out to be both shamefully inadequate or totally power crazed.

As a Guide Editor, I wanted this Entry to stand without any crass, stupid remarks appended to it. It is going to be of use to many many people in the future. The Guide is read by thousands of people each week and should not be blighted by the insensitive remarks by one.

I also wanted you to feel comfortable writing something else for the Guide in future, should you wish.

I hope this puts your mind at ease as to what happened.

Lanzababy <./>Guide Editor</.> and moderator

" I fear, though, that the response will be more likely to be more whinging about the unfairness of moderation than any kind of reflection about appropriate behaviour. "

Bingo. Give that man a cigar. The offending person has posted to their journal whining about their "playful" comment being unjustly removed.

Good article by the way. I stammered a lot as a child but now mange to repress it except when very tired, stressed or trying to say phrases with lots of Ss in. It was good to read someone else's opinion on the matter.

And I did see the comment, and I did find it crass and unnecessary. I suspect they didn't even read the article, just saw the title and felt the need to make an inappropriate remark, sorry "playful, creative comment". It couldn't be crass or inappropriate, it was by an artist, a playful, creative one, which is a handy excuse for being rude to people

I am a huge fan of this entry, I think it's a unique piece of writing and as a site h2g2 should be privileged to contain it. It works really well as informative entry on stammering as well as a personal account.

I think you submitted it to the WW just a few hours after we went live, I suspect that shows how long you'd been planning it. Exposing your emotions in this way is really brave.

As a site we need to encourage more entries of this nature.. and that means protecting the authors from insulting and derogatory comments.

Thanks for your comments. As moderation decisions aren't discussed on site, I wasn't expecting any formal notification or discussion, and the fact that the thread was removed is really all that was required as regards the formal moderation process. As I said in a previous journal entry, I'm rather baffled at the whinging from some quarters about moderation. I've had one comment moderated in over ten years on this site, and so I'm still puzzled about why some people seem to find it so difficult to play by the rules. I wouldn't say that I agree with every moderation decision made, but I certainly wouldn't fancy being in the position of making those decisions. I just wish that getting moderated would have the effect of making some researchers consider, even for a moment, that they might be in the wrong.

It's funny, really. Defenders of political correctness are sometimes (mostly wrongly) accused of taking offence on behalf of others, but here we have a case where someone has decided - on behalf of others - that offence will not be taken. If we did have an election for ultimate arbiter of offence, I must have mislaid my ballot papers.

But the main thing is that the entry is written, published, and available. One person deciding to show themselves up should really be neither here nor there.

Egon - a few people have said something similar about themselves or someone they know in response to the entry. It looks as if there's some of the 5% of under 5s who stammer who never lose it, some who lose it entirely, and some who retain a sliver or trace of it. My own improved to the point to which I can hide it about 95% of the time, though not without paying a price for doing so. I'd love to know what difference early intervention makes, and the extent to which the condition is set in stone.