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

See F615?thread=3590515, post 11 by 'The h2g2 Editors':

"Hello there,

"If anyone would like to put us into a position where we are forced to be more strict in the application of this policy and strain our already limited resources further, then the best way is probably to keep pointing out what might seem to be inconsistencies in the workings of the filter.

"h2g2 Editors"


I am really shocked (though not hugely surprised) to see the italics acting in this immature manner, issuing threats just because some folks are questioning the inclusion of the word "bastard" in the profanity filter. I suppose my views on the profanity filter are really irrelevant here - what matters is that, in the case of a site such as h2g2 that is basically floundering, the italics should surely be working to please members, not antagonise them? And, in fact, isn't that a good policy on any website? Who's going to want to be a member of a site where the staff are sarcastic and refuse to pay any attention to what already seems to be a legitimate concern on the part of the community? And what use are threats going to serve? How could the application of the profanity filter possibly get more strict? (Bad question, I know; now they'll be only too happy to demonstrate.) And why do I have a habit of asking so many rhetorical questions?

I'm sorry to say I have a very low opinion of the italics so this does not surprise me in the least.

They probably thought they were being 'funny'

Traveller in Time imagining a 'free' internet
"It is by the BBC that this site exists. The BBC has to set some rules to make their site accessible to everyone.

It is a thin line between allowing free thought and not offending anyone. I think this site manages quite well. Does not mean the italics like it to be a little sarcastic about it, they have to, to maintain this site as beeing part of the BBC or this site beeing part of the internet anyway.

What I noticed is many people that do not like to use the smilies seem to have to use more strong language. Why can they not just it ?

(There is that same 'sarcasm' in the last sentence. ) "

Also take note of Jimster's rather nasty and sarcastic post to me on that thread ... F615?thread=3590515&post=42134397#p42134397

I was picking on him? He isn't an italic? He hadn't posted the threat? As far as I know, there are only two italics left, and I can't see the other one posting something like that.

You're right, echo, it isn't really about the profanity filter as such, it's about the rude and dismissive attitude displayed by the italics towards people who are questioning the *very real fact* that the filter doesn't work properly.

For example, the problem wasn't that the word 'bastard' wasn't allowed, but that the same word in its plural form wasn't.

Many people have the misconception that there was a mass exodus of regular h2g2 researchers after the profanity filter was introduced *because* of the filter itself. This is not the case. What upset many people to the point of leaving h2g2 for good (and I'm only here kind of part-time these days) was the cackhanded and insulting manner in which the italics treated those who questioned how badly the filter worked.

I don't get it. When I create a page in guideML and make a mistake, the mistake is hightlighted so I can see clearly what needs to be fixed. Surely the profanity filter software could be tweaked to this extent at least - so people don't have to wonder about *which word* hadn't been accepted.

Also, many people asked for a list of 'forbidden' words, so they would know where they stood, what they could or couldn't post. Because frankly, what one person might consider to be a swear word isn't what the next person might agree with. But this very reasonable request was firmly ignored.

We also lost the option of being able to ****-out swear words. We were told that (gasp!) people might guess the real meaning of the word! Duh? Even a three letter acronym I used was banned for this reason. Like, What The Flickety?

The italics chose instead to dismiss the people who simply wanted to know the new rules, have them clearly stated, etc. Oh, and also threaten them when they persisted in their questioning, much like you saw yesterday.

So when it became clear to many people that there was no option for dialogue and discussion about getting the filter to work better a lot of them chose to leave here.

I don't need to swear on h2g2 or anywhere. And it's curious that on my two blogs (and Noggin has also noticed this on his) nobody there is 'abusing their right to swear'. There is certainly never any gratuitous swearing going on, but swear words are sometimes used in context within a discussion. And nuthin that the average ten year old has never heard.

Meanwhile, when you read BBC News online you will come across swear words there written in the context of the article. Likewise if you ever listen to BBC Radio 4. So clearly the BBC itself doesn't have an issue about this.

But as I said earlier, it wasn't the profanity filter itself that was a problem for anybody. It was that the software works like shit and people who questioned it were insulted and/or threatened by the italics at the time. And so a lot of them went 'flick you!' and went off elsewhere.

A real shame, I think.

az

very well said

and unfortunately there are some who think that sarcastic remarks are the best way to deal with any given situation rather than deal with the issues at hand

And sadly I'm begining to think its a case of 'not what you know but who you know' with this site of lately.

"Hello there

I'd have to agree that being able to write bastard in the singular, but not in the plural, is inconsistent and an anomaly in the working of the filter. Unfortunately, although we understand how irritating they can be, our limited resources don't allow us to fine tune the filter to address all such quirks as they are discovered. Please be patient."

That would have been so much better wouldn't it?

Agreed. Rudness and sarcasm from the italics and profanity have something in common - both are unnecessary.

Nog and I listen to Radio 4 programmes every week, we also read BBC news online, and back when I lived in the UK I also watched BBC tv programmes.

I've never seen any clear BBC mandate against 'swear words' being used in any of these programmes nor in news articles. Seems it's something invented by the h2g2 staff (or by their bosses). Whatever. Most agree that it's totally stupid. But all we've ever asked for was a clear and definitive list of words that *cannot be used*. Also to get the filter software tweaked a bit so that it would highlight 'offending words'. So that one knows which word to change.

Too much to ask for? Apparently so.

Meanwhile we are treated to a load of sarcastic and rude and threatening remarks from the italics because we dared to ask for clarification?

Do you think their bosses know about this?

az

I have actually always appreciated the degree to which BBC radio and tv programming is more tolerant of swearing, innuendo, etc. than its American counterparts. h2g2 is not continuing in that (most excellent) tradition.

I have never known how autonomous the h2g2 italics are, so don't know how much of what goes on comes from them and how much from their bosses. I do know that personal attitudes and courtesy have nothing to do with who is in charge.

Well said, Hyp.

az

Hi All,

It seems much has transpired during my mental pilgrimage and none of it particularly surprising.

Please remember that h2g2 is hosted in a country with no formal freedom of speech, no constitution, laws that allow people to be arrested and detained if their actions are, in the opinions of any busy-body you care to mention - "causing alarm or distress", the nation with the highest per capita number of CCTV cameras in the world.

George Orwell was a prophet in my mind. Every day I see our civil liberties being eroded through the careful manipulation of fear, and the use of such stupidity as profanity filters is just one more. We already have a perfectly good method of highlighting unnecessarily offensive postings - the Yikes! button.

However, I don't see conspiracies lurking behind every action. The application of Occam's Razor shows that most of these losses of liberty are due to incompetence, laziness or stupidity.

So what is H2G2 becoming? Incompetent, Lazy or Stupid? Perhaps a member of these fabled moderating staff would like to step through the one-way mirror and comment.

The question they must answer is this - What protection does the addition of imperfect profanity filters give the membership of h2g2 that the Yikes! button doesn't?

You will note that I post this message twice. The second time will be with a known 'profane' word, used in a non-profane context simply to attract the attention of the moderatii to this question:

"Many of the sons of Angevin Kings were indeed themselves ...." David Starkey.

Blessings,
Matholwch .

Hi All,

"Many of the sons of Angevin Kings were indeed themselves ...." David Starkey.

Interesting, it will not let me post the plural of 'bastard' even though it is being used in a correct and inoffensive context and is quoting one of our most eminent historians.

Tell me how that doesn't make a complete mockery of the profanity filter.

I shall now post this question twice. The second time I would like one of you to yikes! it and explain how stupid this question makes thge moderatii look.

Blessings,
Matholwch .

Hi All,

"Many of the sons of Angevin Kings were indeed themselves ...." David Starkey.

Interesting, it will not let me post the plural of 'bastard' even though it is being used in a correct and inoffensive context and is quoting one of our most eminent historians.

Tell me how that doesn't make a complete mockery of the profanity filter?

I shall now post this question twice. The second time I would like one of you to yikes! it and explain how stupid this question makes the moderatii look.

Blessings,
Matholwch .

"Please remember that h2g2 is hosted in a country with no formal freedom of speech, no constitution"

Ah yes, because the country that does have that in it's constitution really DOES get freedom of speech.

Sorry Math, can't help you out there. I've decided that I am no longer getting involved with h2g2 ishoos as the italics have made it very clear that my input is neither appreciated nor wanted. I still chat with a few friends here and sometimes get into an interesting debate thread (though there aren't many of those going on anymore) and of course I'm still maintaining the Photo Gallery. But otherwise and that I'm just an occasional visitor here these days.

az

<>

funny because I thought this site worked because of input from researchers, obviously I've got it all wrong

Well, it's really no big deal for me, Cal, as I have one foot out the door these days anyhow. I used to care so much about this place, but I guess as in all relationships, things change.

Glad I got to meet you and get to know you a bit better recently though.

az

az

I was speechless when I read your post, I'd always considered you to be a person who talks a lot of sense, and I find it incredible that the italics would A) say that to you in the first place and B) not see you for the helpful objective person you are.

I am seriously beginning to think that the italics are being asimulated by certain 'persons/groups' on hootoo, of course that could just be my screaming paranoia taking over

Do none of you realise that the profanity filter is there to prevent h2g2 from being shut down? And not because h2g2 researchers are foul-mouthed, but because the Football site contributors are.

You can waffle all you like about freedom of speech, but freedom of speech is not the right to publish obscenities on the BBC's website. This has been explained so many times, it is no wonder that the italics occasionally get irritated and sarcastic. Surely Jimster and Natalie are not required to explain patiently for the nth time to the same people that this is the case?