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

When did we start doing dupe entries?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/A526150

Bright Blue Shorts, I don't know what happened here. I'll find out and get back to you. We're a bit short in the office today so it might be tomorrow before one of us gets back to you. Hope that's OK.

Sam.

That's fine Sam.

Don't worry I just found the PR thread for this. It supposedly a replacement / updated.

It begins with:
"The Airwolf.org Forum feel the original review is highly inaccurate, and the writer had very little knowledge of the show. As a fan I have a greater knowledge of the show, and so my review is more accurate."

to which I take great offence given that I spent two years of my life watching every episode of the first two seasons. Albeit 15 years prior to writing the entry. But I did then bother to go do some research where my memory failed.

IMHO the replacement is jingoistic and positive t*ss. No cynicism about the programme, but hey what would you expect from a group of fanatics.
No acceptance that their little fantasy world might not be the most perfect place on earth. When I was 15-years-old Airwolf was my fave programme and I used to think like that ... until I grew up.

It would have nice to have been contacted at the PR stage to be informed that my entry would be replaced, but hey that might have led to a bit of infighting and conflict.

Finally I can't believe that we've reached the stage of doing updates of perfectly good entries, when my entry about the "Super Bowl" can sit in PR for a month or so with no-one taking it up, even though no-one's got anything to criticise/comment on/add to it.

Disgruntledly ... BBS

>>>It would have nice to have been contacted at the PR stage to be informed that my entry would be replaced, but hey that might have led to a bit of infighting and conflict.

Mmmm... that's not good. I'm really very sorry about that. Let me talk to the others and let's see if we can come to some sort of compromise. I don't think we've dealt with this very well - the lines of communication have somehow got a bit crossed - but we'll do our best to come to some sort of satisfactory conclusion. I'll get back to you and we'll take it from there.

Sam.

To further my comments ...

Having looked at the Personal Space of the Researcher 210... it appears to me that they have joined on this site with the sole purpose of getting the entry updated to their rose-tinted view.

That isn't my concept of H2G2. If I want to read a nice, positivistic view of Airwolf, I'll go look on their website. I use H2G2 to get a more balanced view of what it was all about. That's what I tried to provide.

I can accept that some of my entry detail was inaccurate (for the 15-year reasons mentioned before), but these should have been corrected into the original. Not an entire replacement. I say replacement because I see no reference to my original work - and I certainly don't want to be associated with this effort, despite some similarities.

And you know what really makes me laugh I was pretty much watching Airwolf about the time Robbie was born ...

Sam - I just wrote my reply while yours was being posted - it wasn't a response to yours.

A quick comparison shows some info to have been lost from my entry because ultimately the style of the two entries is entirely different.

Anyway I'll leave it with you for when people return to the office

Although this guide entry is technically more correct, I found your entry a much more entertaining read, BBS

A few hours have past since my initial reactions, but at the risk of labouring the point here are my thoughts:

1) the replacement entry has added very little new information, beyond tidying up the pilot episode description, a full cast list, and the US makers.

What it has done though is removed a heckuva lotta stuff. Much of it my personal reflections and UK airing times.

1b) Perhaps the only thing it really adds is a few more websites to go read. But then judging from the PR thread and the researcher's Personal Space, this was an exercise in getting this entry amended and promoting their websites / fan groups.

2) if this is an updated entry where are the credits to my original work. If this is a replacement then it looks pretty plagiarised. Same format / almost the same wording in many areas.

IMHO an update should be done either by the original author (if they are still active), alternatively by the editors. Otherwise you end up with the situation that has occurred here, the original author's style is ditched in favour of the new author with relatively little work required on their part.

Ultimately imagine I find an entry I don't like on H2G2. I basically rewrite the entry in my own sanitised style, take out all the bits I don't like and then add in a couple of other tidbits. IMHO that is what has happened here.

Alternatively if a replacement entry is required - and there are some entries on H2G2 that could do with it - the new author should start from scratch and find their own style.

3) to give my entry some context, here is what I was up to when I first watched "Airwolf" back in the 1980s. This should explain my cynicism within the entry. If I could have written in the first-person this is what I would have said.

"Aged 13 I remember sitting in one Friday night and watching a superb 90 minute pilot episode about an awesome attack helicopter. Back in 1984 my friends and I loved shows about fast cars, or aliens (e.g. "V") and we'd get our older brothers to rent out "The Terminator" or "Mad Max 2" to play on their new-fangled video recorders.

So it was that for the next two years I spent Friday nights, then Saturday afternoons watching Airwolf waiting for the spectacular pyrotechnics of the pilot episode to be repeated. But almost immediately they were gone, never to be repeated. The helicopter would only really doing anything in the last 10 minutes of each programme. Just like the A-Team introduced a female reporter to attract the male audience, the second season saw the introduction of a female pilot. Eventually I realised the series had gone downhill and stopped watching."

IMHO these things needed to be said in this entry otherwise you might just as well go read the fan's websites where everything is rosy and wonderful.

Yours labouredly,
BBS

Hi BBS.

Firstly, as Sam said, major apologies for this situation. When the entry was accepted, as you rightly point out, it was going to be an update of your original. Unfortunately, with the events of the last couple of weeks this was then forgotten and it was processed as if it were a new entry.

What I'm proposing to do, if it's okay with you, is to combine both entries like we should have done in the first place. We'll use your entry's A-number (as it came first and so should take precedent) and of course credit yourself and the Researcher of this entry. The update will also take into consideration your points from this thread.

Jimster

Thing is Jimster, as I say previously I don't see much being added ...

When people write entries they make decisions about the level of detail to include. I chose to stay away from cast lists, and lengthy discussions of plots. If these updates had been suggested at original PR, I don't think I would have added them because that sort of stuff can be found on the fan websites.

That's not to say there aren't somethings that could be added e.g.
- the 2nd paragraph about Belisarius/Magnum PI/CBS.
- a tightening of the pilot's storyline.
- the new website links.
- possibly some of the copter specs.

Would like to think that I'm not being deliberately stroppy, but I probably am.

BTW are u going to kick the scout's butt for letting this go through? I can't see this should have been picked without these kind of issues having been raised earlier.

Not at all, it is entirely our fault. The problem is we still don't have a formal update system. Jimi X has kindly been doing updates on a volunteer basis, but the workload's getting too much, and too many people were dumping entries saying 'This needs updating' without doing the update themselves. So we've been trying to either divert people to the Writer's Workshop, or if it seemed like a hefty rewrite, through Peer Review. But as I said earlier, having agreed this, we then, um, forgot. Additionally, superficialy this looked like a major rewrite, but on closer inspection as you pointed out it does rely heavily on your own existing entry.

I've updated your entry now, integrating the newer material but retaining a lot of your own stuff (I've placed one section in blockquotes, as it's more an articic interpretation of an episode than an actual scene necessarily).

(Oh, and we've cancelled the Edited updated version so this remains the only Edited Guide Entry on the subject)

Obviously, we never ask for entries to be exhaustive, but it's always nice if they can be a little more balanced.

Jimster

Sorry Jim - but you've missed the whole point.

I just read your rewrite and you've gone with the nicely sanitised stuff. It now has "a memorable theme tune" as opposed to "a theme tune that rocked".

I don't know I don't want to make work for you, we're all busy people. I don't have time to rewrite matters myself.

I'd prefer just to lose the credit ... I can't be associated with this cr*p.

And as a further point given that we were trying to be accurate ...

The section that you have put into block quotes about stock footage, was actually stock footage that I can remember seeing in the first two seasons. This was part of my point, the series was on the decline before season 4.

A 10 minute merging of two entries was not really the resolution I expected to a 5-week cockup ...

To be fair, BBS, whether the merge was done this morning or five weeks ago, the outcome would probably have been the same. I'm trying to find a fair compromise between a respected Researcher and a representative of the fanbase that this entry would surely hope to attract. Having collaborated with you on the 'Field of Dreams' entry, I'm sure you'll remember that I don't want to upset anyone by doing a quick 5-minute job on anything.

I think it'd be a shame to lose your credit, considering you're the main contributor, and obviously we don't wish to alienate a new researcher who, it's true, joined up solely to comment on your own entry and suggest changes. Updates and additions are a natural part of an ongoing collaborative Guide like h2g2, but hopefully not at the cost of the original research. Is there anything that I've missed that you'd like me to put in?

Jims

Editorial Note: This conversation has been moved from the rewrite ''Airwolf' - the TV Series' to the original ''Airwolf' - the TV Series'.

Firstly despite my earlier rebukes, I don't think this is an "old vs new" researcher issue. It could easily have happened between two established, or two newbie researchers. The H2G2-world evolves all the time, and so perhaps it is time that my style was replaced, perhaps it's not.

Secondly when I refer to a 10 minute fix, I was referring to what appeared to me to be rushing in and merging the entries before we'd thought through the possibilites. No offence intended, and apologies if it took you longer than that. But as I shall explain I think realistically I would have preferred them to stay two separate entries perhaps with different titles.

That aside ...

The problem here is that two 'totally different' entries have been merged.

- While being an review of Airwolf my entry, it was also a cynical view of mid 1980s television, the devices it uses to capture the audience, and how quickly they are abandoned. Given that lack of first-person usage, it was also recounted how effective these little hooks are to your testosterone-filled teenage male. Ultimately the show deserves little - it sold itself out. The TV producers couldn't be a**ed or afford to spend lots of money creating decent scripts / effects / characterisation after the pilot so why should we treat it as the revered programming, that it wasn't.

- The new entry was an informative guide to the series.

Consequently the writing styles of these two things are vastly different.

- Mine uses sarcasm/slang to describe "the amazing features of the chopper", mentioning things in that the show emphasised that weren't really that amazing.

- The new entry has a sanitised, accurate, Queen's English style.

My preferred solution would have been to keep my my style with a few minor updates being added to clarify matters, or provide more info.

Anyway as I inarticulately tried to say earlier, I don't want to make work for you. I have my original editable entry - I shall replace the link in my Personal Space, and put some suitably pithy explanation alongside.

This post has been removed.

Please read: F47997?thread=261656&post=3223824#p3223824

RhoMuNuQ

This is a rather wonderfully mature response. I hope no-one "Yikes" it, as it gives a wonderful insight into the angry young man that you currently are Be nice perhaps for you to look back at this record in about 18 years, rather like you can look back at your baby book.

Unfortunately I got to your response on the other thread 37 minutes too late as it had already been moderated. I'm sure it was much the same as this, with wonderful swearing and insults directed at me throughout.

Anyway I won't bother with a response to your comments, there's not much point. You aren't really interested in anyone else's point of view.

Oh and by the way - you do take it all very seriously and personally, don't you?

Actually the other posting only slagged you off during the last quarter of it. The bulk of the posting was actually all manner of dire threats to the BBC over copyright and links and stuff.

So, what in the name of fair exchange, what did this yiksed posting say?