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

Entry: How To Trap Wasps - A1032094
Author: The Anonymous Researcher - U181368

Okay, so some of this info *is* featured in the "Wasps" entry at A225839, but Anna (as in italic Anna) said that it didn't matter.

I'm allergic to wasp stings, and have to take anti-histamine tablets immediately if stung.

Therefore I kill as many wasps as possible.

I use a used jam jar, fill it with water, smear a little of the jam round the inside edge of the jar, replace the lid, make a few holes in the lid.

Put it in the garden.

I usually empty out the drowned wasps once a week.

~shudder~

I might have a go at this trap of yours, but I certainly won't be setting them free after I've trapped them. What's the point of trapping them if you're just going to set them free later?

My family used to trap/collect wasps for Beechams (to make an anti-serum). We used jam-jars with the dregs of jam, a little near-boiling water to spread the scent and cross-sliced grease-proof paper as a lid held on with a rubber band. The wasps got in by their weight bending down the flaps of the cross but couldn't fly out. We caught lots this way. No plastic bottles were involved. So it's hard to believe the funnel method is superior. Though it's just about possible that cuttable plastic bottles didn't exist much at the time.

That probably helped to save my life many times, SEF, thanks very much

You're welcome, Galaxy Babe, though we didn't have any specific people in mind at the time. Beechams wouldn't actually let me work in their labs because I have too many allergies of my own. I was probably just too much of an insurance liability.

PS The latest thing is collecting yew clippings for making taxol.

I know, but it's like giving blood or carrying an organ donor card. You don't know *who* it will help, but you know it will help *someone*.

I have no idea what "latest thing is collecting yew clippings for making taxol" means, and we really shouldn't discuss it here, as it's off-topic.
Your space or mine?

Well getting back on-topic then with a surprising plot twist, it might be worth checking whether any of the current pharmaceutical conglomerates are still collecting wasps. I think they moved to a different production method. However, if the scheme was still active it could be another example in the article of what to do with your wasps once you have caught them. Does anyone fancy a quick google on the matter?

Well, I tried the trap today. Bit early in the year apparently. Even though we do have a nest. It works for ants, though.

"Okay, so some of this info *is* featured in the "Wasps" entry at A225839, but Anna (as in italic Anna) said that it didn't matter."

I'm sure duplicating some information would be quite alright, but it appears that you have lifted the entirety of your entry directly from the former. Since all of this information is already incorporated into an edited entry I'm not sure that it requires it's own entry.

If this specific information didn't already exist in the Edited Guide then it would be fine to write it and include *some* of the information from the existing entry. But I don't see that this is the case here. Was Anna aware that the information was virtually identical when she said it didn't matter?

Killing wasps is never a good idea AGB- when they are killed they release a chemical which attracts more wasps- pretty much defeats the purpose- you'd probably have a Hell of a lot less wasps around if you weren't attracting them with sugary jam and the scent of their own dead!

I have to second Miloso's concern about this entry. Most of it is taken word for word from the wasps entry. It looks like its just been cut and pasted. It's not simply a repeat of some information, it's direct copying of the text.

Perhaps a monor update of the existing entry is in order, rather than a seperate one?

It would be a pretty minor update. The only new information (or wording) is the bit about fruit flies and minnow. I really think everybody should compare the two entries. A1032094 is just a section of Anna's entry cut out and retitled with a paragraph tacked on the end. And the new title is one of Anna's headers!

I've posted a message to Anna's space enquiring what she meant.

Have you considered that perhaps that was copied from THIS entry? Wild and unfounded accusations are flying around.

Well we do know from the A-numbers that Anna's entry was created a long time before this new one. However, because the system only reports the creation date on the page itself (something which has been a complaint/suggestion elsewhere), we don't know when the page was last updated with new information. Anna (or even another italic by use of their private editing tools) might be able to clarify on contents or date.

Well, would you look at that! They're both old Sylas Eybin entries, and "How to trap wasps" is older than "wasps". Sorry for the unfounded accusations.

Now, a founded question:

Since the edited entry covers everything in the entry presently in peer review (word for word) is there really a point in sending this entry up?

hiya wanna chat?

This is the best I could do about piecing the history of this together. All of these seem to be, in at least some small ways, related.

*September '99 Researcher 33337 wrote an entry on wasps. This is at A165214
*November '99 Silas Eybin wrote an entry on how to trap wasps. This is at A215885. In December '02 this was submitted to peer review by another researcher, that review thread is at F27717?thread=229548. After suggestions were made to the thread to no response from the author it was sent to the Flea Market 5 weeks ago, thread at F27717?thread=262545. It appears this is where Anonymous found it.
*December '99 the edited entry was published citing Researcher 33337, Prez HS, Researcher 106756, and Eeyore as contributors, but not Silas Eybin. This can be found at A225839, and appears to contain parts of both of the previous entries.
*April '00 it appears Silas Eybin duplicated the edited entry at A301294. Dunno why.
*April '03 Anonymous pasted the bulk of A215885 into a new entry at A1032094 adding a few minor changes, then re-submitted to Peer Review.

What appears to have happened is that even though it was pointed out in the previous Peer Review thread that this information was a duplicate, it wasn't removed from Peer Review but instead was sent to the Flea Market where it was made available to any other researcher who wanted to claim it.

So I guess my question is this - Can the editors remove entries from Peer Review or can that only be done by the author or submitter? Am I following this correctly that this shouldn't have been placed in the Flea Market?

And my apologies to Anonymous Researcher, it was not my intention to accuse you of any wrongdoing, I only looked at the two entries you referenced in you original post. I'm sorry.

Editors (or at least specifically Jim) definitely can remove entries from Peer Review. I can't risk trying to find the thread with the proof as I appear to only have a phantom connection to the internet at the moment (no visible logo and I had to sleaze in sideways via another site). So it might die again at any time. The backlog awaits