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

The date of the entry is, perhaps poignantly, October 2001 and yet there is information in the footnotes referencing events of 2007.

Apparently, Edited Guide Entries are no longer frozen in time or fixed in stone. Their immutability used to be one of the Edited Guides most fore-thinking, if Draconian, features. Whether right or wrong, living or dead, factual or facetious, once 'Edited' it was frozen.

This of course led many to Wiki which suffered the opposite effect of constant re-editing of information and a playground for jerks with mis-informed whirled-views before an Orwellian atmosphere prevailed like nuts in Brazil. (I'd hyperlink that to the movie if I could.)

It seems h2g2 has found some sort of balance or at least the ability to allow entries to be updated. So I'll not want to argue the pros and cons of either the freezers or the updaters but would suggest that the powers-that-be should ensure the dates of all subsequent updates and revisions appear clearly but parenthetically. Knowing when something was written is essential to understanding.

I'm sure someone will relay that message to the overlords.
And I thank you.
(sic)
~jwf~

The source orf the confusion is hootoo's update policy.
When an article is rewritten it replaces the earlier text but the date remains that of the original article. this is why I had put a forum listing with the date of the update.

The Peer Review thread of the Update is usually transferred to the original article, but I see it hasn't happened here. Every update I have performed, I have ensured this has happened.

Yes the Peer Review thread remained with A36211646 which I deleted to avoid having duplicate articles. I have temporarily undeleted it for reference.

I think the 'dates' of any updates should appear up top near the date of the original entry.

I confess that when I see an entry dated 'October 2001' I am dis-inclined to read further because in most cases it is going to be out of date.

I read this one of course because I was led (from another thread) to believe it contained information about 'naming the decades' and was then surprised to see footnotes referencing 2007 which resulted in my confusion and questioning the process of dating and updating entries.

As a general rule around the interweb I find most blogs and entries clearly show when pages were 'last updated'. For a guide like h2g2, especially in subject areas such as science and geo-tourism (ie: Lansing, Mich, etc), readers would be put off seeing a date that is 7 years old, and assume that the information is simply not current.

peace
~jwf~

I fully agree with the sentence
I think the 'dates' of any updates should appear up top near the date of the original entry.
however there are perhaps better forums to make that complaint( such as editorial feedback)

>> ...there are perhaps better forums to make that complaint... <<

Yes, that's why I said I hoped someone would pass the suggestion on to the powers-that-be.
(waves to GB )

I am on record as long ago having opposed the PR process and 'Edited Guide' guidelines (see U187783) and I would not expect to be taken seriously on the subject anywhere.

That said, I really do believe a more accurate dating and updating process would enhance readership, especially of older entries.

Do please keep us posted on the latest Parade of the Decades.

~jwf~

most of what I have to say on the 'parade of the decades' is already said at
F73158?thread=6582848 which I labeled Lansing 150
the parade really did not live up to expectations.
The floats were basically PR for the organization that entered them in the parade and told very little about history. There also was no further help there in naming the decade.

You know for years it seemed that the 'no photograph' rule was etched in stone but it is eroding away.
Even now I have a picture of a shagbark tree in my personal space.
However I am still not allowed a photograph of my RL self.
Curators are apparently allowed them, researchers are not.
Perhaps given enough time that will change.

That's rot, shagbark.

I got a photo of myself because I wrote and submitted an Entry to the Post, and enclosed a photo which was deemed usable. There's no conspiracy,

I also saw someone who took a trip around the world and had a photo of himself attached. But that is the exception not the rule. what I am saying is the old prohibitions are rotting away and even the front Page isd under redesign. time tenbds to change policy.

which brings us back to the original
Someone would think the Lansing article was completely out of date if they went by the date the editors have assigned.

The date at the top is only the date that the Entry was created.

We try to keep all the Edited Entries up to date, and are constantly changing them based on information provided by volunteers. The dates of these changes are not necessarily recorded anywhere on the Entry.

Shagbark, the reason you are not allowed a photo of yourself is that putting photos on the site can only be done by the Editors and the Post Editors, whose time is limited. They'll only add a photo if it is for an Edited Entry or an article in the Post. Since you have not written any Edited Entry about yourself, and have not written an article about yourself for The Post, you've no way of getting a photo onto the site.

Neither have I.

this quote from post 13 sums up the main objection we are voicing here 'The dates of these changes are not necessarily recorded anywhere on the Entry.' It shouldn't be like that.
Other websites can put the latest date somewhere close to the original date and hootoo could also if they chose to program it that way.
They frequently do upgrades to DNA - this shouldn't be that hard to do.

Why don't you suggest it in the Talking Point on the Front Page, or in the Feedback / Design section?

I suggested something like that back on post #6
perhaps not as specifically as you did however.

But no-one with any influence in the formatting of h2g2 would read it here. You've been given the correct advice now,

I'm convinced that a "date last updated" field would be much use. If someone points out that a word is mispelled, we change it, and the date last updated would change, but it wouldn't mean the information in the entry was any more up to date.l

Clearly, spelling corrections need not be noted.
But UPDATES certainly should.

IE:

Entry date: October 2001
Updated: February 2005
Latest Update: November 2007

Or even just the LATEST update since that would indicate if the entry is current and valid. As someone who does not contribute to the Edited Guide I realise my voice means little in this debate. But as a reader of Edited Guide entries it often means I will not bother to read something that looks like it's more than a year or two old in any subject area where new developments are ongoing - space exploration, genetics, social policies, tourism, etc.

~jwf~