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

<>

Yet again paying a licence fee to the BBC means diddly squat I see. Oh why oh why are we having to pay for a service that we have no say in, are not allowed to complain about and where we get treated like shit?

I agree, Gnomon, that there's a good reason why that one is singled out for filtering.

I was posting merely to clarify, since someone asked.

TRiG.

I don't think the researchers here are treated like shit. I think they treat the Editors like shit.

Um... as I don't pay a licensing fee because I live in the States I feel my opinion is no longer valid. Shutting up sir.

'Yet again paying a licence fee to the BBC means diddly squat I see. Oh why oh why are we having to pay for a service that we have no say in, are not allowed to complain about and where we get treated like shit?'

Eh?

The site is written by volunteers. The Entries that make up the Edited Guide, Post, and UnderGuide are selected by volunteers. The photographs and art that are added to Entries are now created and selected by volunteers. The Entries are sub-edited by volunteers. Errors and updates are handled by volunteers. You can complain at Editorial Feedback or by emailing the Editors, though you have no right to expect them to agree with you. And you even get to say shit or piss if the mood takes you, though frankly I don't see why you'd want to. Have you been reading the Daily Mail?

<>

And I don't think either sweeping generalisation is entirely accurate.

<>

And these same volunteers are not listened to

<>

I don't expect the eds to agree with me but I do expect them to listen to me and reply without sarcastic comment.

How often do you expect them to reply without sarcasm if you keep asking the same thing over and over again?

The eds do listen to the volunteers, but they can't agree with or implement everything we (or some of us) want. They're doing their best; where has this anti-italic attitude I see all over the site come from?

For the record, I've never had an issue with the profanity filter and I don't really understand what all the fuss is about. It may well be, as someone said earlier, that it wasn't designed for us but for the messageboards. If so, it has to be implemented accross all DNA sites. Even if that wasn't the case, does it really cause people this much worry?

Not getting at anyone in particular here, but all these comments about how people on h2g2 don't really swear, hence no need for a profanity filter just make me think "Well, why is it a problem then?"

Well, Tea Liner, one of the problems is that words which we use perfectly innocently turn out to have an alternative offensive meaning and are on the banned list for that reason. Since we don't know which word is banned, it is difficult for us to repost the material without the banned word. This happened to Azara who went to visit the Frick Museum in New York. At the time, the word Frick was banned so Azara's posting about her travels in New York wouldn't post.

That one was sorted out later, but similar things happen with other words.

I understand that, Gnomon, but it can't happen that often, surely?

No, I don't suppose it does.

I'm not saying that the filter is perfect, just that the fuss made seems a bit disproportionate in most cases.

Oh for heavens sake - when will people 'get it'?

Nobody had a serious issue against the stupid profanity filter, the majority took umbrage with the way the italics responded to their very reasonable questions at the time. Which was very dismissive.

They also took issue in that it didn't work very well, as in the 'offending word' was not highlighted when the filter failed a post. Still isn't.

Nobody was ever fighting for a right to use swear words here ... heck, almost nobody swears here anyhow. Used to be we could *** out certain words, but the new profanity filter put the kibosh on that as well.

There was a lot of confusion when this filter was first implemented and the italics did nothing to help alleviate this. When researchers posted their questions and also stuff about their confusion they were met with sarcastic replies and basically told to 'live with it'. Nice.

So, to answer you question, Elentari, there is no problem at all with the filter as such. Yes, it would be much better if it actually worked properly, but nobody is saying they are against it because they have a deep and personal need to use swear words on h2g2. They are mostly pissed off at the dismissive and insulting attitude that the Eds/italics took when they wanted their questions answered.

And to answer Gnomon's post from awhile back ... nobody would be continuing to ask the italics the *same questions* if they had been properly answered in the first place.

az

I agree, Elentari, and at the outset I was one of the people berating the nay-sayers and whiners and standing up for both the filter and the Editors even though in one or two instances I agreed with the complaints (like not being able to post the opening line of Little Richard's song 'Tutti Frutti' or a certain quote from the part of the Hitchhikers story where the Krikkit robots appear and then disappear because in another context, a certain three-letter word is a derogatory term for an Italian... albeit one that nowadays I think is somewhat archaic and little used).

I also have a great deal of sympathy and understanding for the Eds, having seen some of the threads and posts and idiots they were having to deal with on a daily basis and which I imagine must have been siphoning a significant amount of their time away from the real business of running this website.

I do, however, still wonder about why they were so reticent in their explanations when the filter was originally introduced. I understand that the filter was introduced across the board and we have to fall under its jurisdiction but I don't know why it was so poorly designed and why they decided to use something which, to me, seems quite unfit for the purpose for which it's intended. As I've already pointed out, the argument that it doesn't highlight the offending word is because it will encourage people to find ways around posting the word they want to is utterly laughable, in my opinion. And I have to say that I've had experiences where I've posted something which I consider to be inoffensive and even part of generally accepted language these days (sorry, I can't recall any specific instances), only to have it failed by the filter, suggesting to me that the list of words has been heavily influenced by the kind of people who read the Daily Mail and who are holding to ransom anyone who shows a morsel of fear in their direction. That's bullying. Big corporations, whether they be businesses like General Motors or organisations like the BBC, are disproportionately afraid of offending anyone and will go to sometimes ridiculous ends to avoid doing so.

The filter, as it stands, is a small example of that. There are certain words which I think most of us will agree upon as being either offensive or uncouth. Those are mostly the words on the Hub list and those of us here have managed to get by perfectly well without using them, even if we sometimes use them in real life. The filter, unfortunately, encompasses a far wider range of words and, being a machine, can't deduce context. A word which is perfectly innocent in one context is not in another, such as the aforementioned Little Richard lyric. Before the filter you could have posted it and it would have slipped by completely unnoticed by everyone because no-one would have made the connection, but now the filter stops you (unless this particular instance has been fixed, and I'm not going to try it this time) and there's nothing you can do about.

In the past, your post would have been modded by someone pushing the yikes button. The Mods would have either failed it, reinstated it, or referred it to the Eds. Even if they'd failed it you would still have a form of appeal by replaying to the email you get when one of your posts gets pulled, but there's no appeal with the filter because the filter simply stops you from posting. You can't go anywhere - you're up against a brick wall. The only option open to you is to email the Eds about the problem. Given their sensitivity about the filter and the problems and complaints associated with it, I think that a lot of people feel that doing so would be a waste of time.

azahar - I take your point, but I don't think I saw any of the posts you're referring to, so I can't comment.

Does anyone know if there's any chance of the filter being improved so that the problems Gosho mentioned can be reduced? Doesn't seem likely I know, since it is a machine, but I just thought I'd ask.

<> (Elentari)

I'm kind of beyond caring at this point, Elentari. To be honest.

I only posted again on this thread because I saw you here and thought I should try to explain things a bit better so you wouldn't think I was just being a jerk. Ya know?

Anyhow . . . it's just THERE and not terribly a good or helpful thing, as in people being told about the weird 'one day a word is accepted, next day it's not' shit. Or vice versa. Heck, I don't care, I'm mostly hanging out on my blog these days ...

See you there?


az

Hi Gnomon

It begins with well-meaning attempts just to edit 'obscene' words (I'll come back to obscenity in a minute), then we'll be told we cannot discuss race in case someone gets upset, and then religion, or age, or sex, or politics and soon there nothing left we can discuss.

After all it is already illegal in the UK to 'incite racial or religious hatred' - though both of these are badly defined. Technically I could be prosecuted for telling the one about 'the Rabbi, the Priest and the Druid', if someone hitched up their skirts, stood on a stool and screamed "THOMAS! There's a racist/mouse in here!". And by allowing me to say it on their precious bandwidth the BBC could also face proceedings.

If that's the way its going to go then I say sod'em - oops another profanity - this one based on the Abrahamic's fear of homosexual relationships but hey.

So we drift into obscenity. What is obscenity? Well most words considered obscene and that have been inserted into the Profanity Filter are ones that might make a presbyterian minister's wife blush - but not the average citizen of the UK.

Most of them are Old English or variations on Christian Curses and have been in our daily lexicon for a millenia. But some PC twonk (heh, heh, I bet that one's not in the filter yet) has decided we can't say them no more just in case Mrs G.Brown is reading over my shoulder.

If we don't stand up to this here it will carry on permeating our society until George Orwell's vision of newspeak comes to pass. Through moulding our language they will control our ability to imagine and resist.

Do not let the PC manipulate you with terrible tales of hatred, just like they are curtailing all our other civil liberties by the use of fear of the 'muslim-menace'.

If you really want to hear some obscenities read the list below. The use of these words is really obscene:
1. Collateral damage.
2. Friendly fire.
3. Islamic terrorist.
4. Smart/cluster bomb.
5. Nuclear deterrent.

Blessings,
Matholwch .

I disagree completely with you, Matholwch. I do not want my children to see the words that the profanity filter blocks. I don't even want to see them myself. If somebody else wants to use them in a posting, I do not want to look at that posting, no matter what it is about.

Obscenities are used to offend - that it there purpose. If you use them without intending to offend, then they have lost their meaning and you should not be using them, as they are just a waste of space and time. And if you use them to offend me, why are you surprised when I am offended. I think the profanity filter is good.

"If you use them without intending to offend, then they have lost their meaning and you should not be using them, as they are just a waste of space and time"
Can you explain the process that leads you to that conclusion, Gnomon? Some words eventually become archaic and outdated but they rarely lose their meaning. If they lose their offensiveness then they become just another word in the English language that no-one bats an eyelid about. Even the word 'bloody' was considered outrageous not so long ago. 'Heck' is a euphemism for 'hell', but who gets outraged these days about the word 'hell'? Both 'hell' and 'bloody' are far less offensice that 'shit', and yet we can post that. 'Shit', it would seem, has lost its offensiveness and obscenity as far as the BBC is concerned and is just another English word.

Matholwch points out that it's not just obscene words which are at issue here but also words which have quite possibly been included for reasons of PC-ness, and that irks me and a lot of other people.