 |
|   | Subject: Rise of the Planet of the Researchers
Posted Oct 26, 2011 by Gaston Prereth | | Post: 1
|
*puts down his box and tests it with his foot. When he is sure it will hold, he stands upon it and looks around the empty square with an attempted look of superiority*
*Clears his throat*
people! Researchers, the time has come. With thousands flooding back through the gates, their clipboards in hand, looking for interesting things to scribble down and throw into the ether, it is time we took a stand. United.
The great new benefactors are Not Panicking (ltd) and neither should we. We should take hold of this chance and demand what we have always wanted to demand.
*holds hands up to the empty square to silence the non-existent crowd*
Researchers, Researchers, please. We must pull together, we must grab what is ours with both hands and refuse to let go until we get what we deserve.
*pauses with a quizzical look on his face*
and then I guess we should keep holding on to it then as well, otherwise the whole thing would have been a waste of time
*refocuses*
So, let us make our demands clear, so that the world knows the cause which we have all gathered here together to fight for.
Firstly!
some of the pages need a bit of a tidy up because 'BBC' appears more times than I could count, even using my toes, and it makes the site (already) feel a step behind.
And Secondly, and more importantly. We should all unite in the fight for a
ring fenced Edited guide. I just think a greater distinction between the wonderful but unedited guide entries and the Edited Guide Entries would make it feel more important when an entry got accepted and it would also be easier to find out factual and trust-able information. I was thinking along the lines of a mocked up online ebook, a step closer to the Real Guide?
Thank you for listening. Rise up!
*gets off the box and wanders away in the direction of the nearest post office*
 <bigears>
occupyh2g2Feedback
|  | Subject: Rise of the Planet of the Researchers
Posted Oct 26, 2011 by Vip
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 3
|
I'll drink to that. 
| | Subject: Rise of the Planet of the Researchers
Posted Oct 26, 2011 by Icy North
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 4
|
Thanks Gaston 
*clears throat*
As the site develops, we will want to create other products which showcase (with a small 's') the creative writing talents of h2g2 researchers, but the general consensus is that we don't want to blur the distinction between fact and fiction. The Edited Guide as you describe it will be safe.
Thank you
*exit, pursued by a seal*
| | Subject: Rise of the Planet of the Researchers
Posted Oct 26, 2011 by aka Bel
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 5
|
Oh, so the UGT is no longer relevant?
| | Subject: Rise of the Planet of the Researchers
Posted Oct 26, 2011 by Icy North
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 6
|
It's a model which may work, but nobody wants to dilute the integrity of the Edited Guide. I'm sure there's a way to promote both fact and fiction.
| | Subject: Rise of the Planet of the Researchers
Posted Oct 26, 2011 by aka Bel
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 7
|
I thought Jordan had some god ideas. And I'd like to have narrated factual entries.
None of us would want to ignore the UGT and its important points. I have however written a counter theory called Relational Guide theory (see the relevant guide entry)
Both proposals have their benefits and neither should be dismissed without consideration, but I believe the RGT is the Hegelian compromise between the thesis of the old guide and the antithesis of the UGT. (and no that is not an insult to the UGT, as you know it just means it is an opposing thesis to the idea of the establishment)
| | Subject: Rise of the Planet of the Researchers
Posted Oct 26, 2011 by six7s
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 9
|
i want 2 cancel this account what 2 do
Nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.
| | Subject: Rise of the Planet of the Researchers
Posted Oct 28, 2011 by Mrs Zen
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 11
|
I don't yet understand Relational Guide Theory, but I'm going to read the begger until I do.
In the meantime, let me stick a blumming great stake in the sand here.
>> but the general consensus is that we don't want to blur the distinction between fact and fiction. The Edited Guide as you describe it will be safe.
*ahem*
Not so fast.
What about commentary?
What about analysis?
What about first person experiences?
What about testimonial?
What about observation?
The opposite of the sort of "fact" in the Edited Guide may be "fiction". But the alternatives most certainly are not.
What is knowledge anyway? The postivists have ruled the roost at h2g2 for 12 years, but my motto on this is "Not Only, But Also"
Not only fact, but also insight.
>> nobody wants to dilute the integrity of the Edited Guide. I'm sure there's a way to promote both fact and fiction.
*Waves hand* - I might. 
I feel at this stage, after my little speech, I should make it clear where I stand on this undulating blanket of undefined facts and fictions.
I might well tether myself to Ben's Stake here, but i'm also pretty certain i'll end up tugging it and straining at the leash once I do.
The RGM is a proposal of segregate Edited and Non Edited entries, and an argument for why. It tries to take into account the value of non edited entries both in the creative process of writing more entries and their innate value.
HOWEVER, the RGM does not prescribe what sort of genre/style entries are allowed into the edited guide. It merely says that they should be well written.
It allows for a certain degree of editorial rules to be put in to place, if the community feels it is necessary, but it does not (AND WILL NOT) be drawn on what constitutes a "worthy" entry. That is for something for the editors and wider community to decide.
I shall be, this weekend, be fleshing out the RGM thesis with more than has currently been displayed as there is much more behind it then its "description" covers. Particularly the relational nature between both edited/edited entries and edited/non edited entries.
Oh "and another thing"
It is my personal belief that the Guide offers something unique but that the positive's model actually sterilises the guide into the wiki witch of the west, where as the UGT is an idealisation of that uniqueness into something unworkable and practical.
That is Gaston's opinion but not the opinion of the spokesman for RGM (who also happens to be me, but I’d hate for it to fall foul of ad hominem arguments)
| | Subject: Rise of the Planet of the Researchers
Posted Oct 28, 2011 by Mrs Zen
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 14
|
At the moment Edited Entries say "Edited Entry" at the top, in Brunel at least. (Let me check the other skins).
Compare:
http://www.h2g2.com/dna/h2g2/brunel/A87709341
http://www.h2g2.com/dna/h2g2/brunel/A87708423
http://www.h2g2.com/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A87709341
http://www.h2g2.com/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A87708423
http://www.h2g2.com/dna/h2g2/classic/A87709341
http://www.h2g2.com/dna/h2g2/classic/A87708423
http://www.h2g2.com/dna/h2g2/plain/A87709341
http://www.h2g2.com/dna/h2g2/plain/A87708423
| | Subject: Rise of the Planet of the Researchers
Posted Oct 28, 2011 by Mrs Zen
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 15
|
Ignore above - the links don't work. 
| | Subject: Rise of the Planet of the Researchers
Posted Oct 28, 2011 by Mrs Zen
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 16
|
Try these - you may have to copy and paste though.
http://h2g2.com/dna/h2g2/brunel/A87709341
http://h2g2.com/dna/h2g2/brunel/A87708423
http://h2g2.com/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A87709341
http://h2g2.com/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A87708423
http://h2g2.com/dna/h2g2/classic/A87709341
http://h2g2.com/dna/h2g2/classic/A87708423
Ok, none of those links worked for me for some reason.
My point is not that edited entries are not currently distinguishable from non edited entries. Of course they are.
The RGM is about reshaping this distinction and changing the way that we relate to the entries but also how the entries relate to each other.
As I said, I only just touched on this in the entry for RGM as I wanted debate to start before I scared people off with details.
| | Subject: Rise of the Planet of the Researchers
Posted Oct 28, 2011 by Mrs Zen
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 18
|
Try copy and pasting them - they are redirecting oddly; that's one for Brian methinks.
In the meantime:
>> The RGM is about reshaping this distinction and changing the way that we relate to the entries but also how the entries relate to each other.
I'm listening. I have no idea what you are talking about, but I am listening...
B
| | Subject: Rise of the Planet of the Researchers
Posted Oct 28, 2011 by Icy North
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 19
|
If I can't distinguish whether what I'm reading is fact or fiction than it has no place in an edited guide, in my opinion. However, I think we're talking about three different things here. I'll retire gracefully and watch from a distance.
>>>>>>I'm listening. I have no idea what you are talking about, but I am listening...
I'll have to try to make more sense then.
Please note that Not Panicking Ltd is not responsible for the content of any external sites listed. The content on h2g2 is created by h2g2's Researchers, who are members of the public. Unlike Edited Guide Entries, the content on this page has not necessarily been checked by a h2g2 editor. In the event that you consider anything on this page to be in breach of the site's House Rules, please
click here
.
|
