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

While I agree that more factual content wouldn't go amiss, without shock factor the article is kind of pointless, IMO.

Plus, we're all grown ups (or as near as) here, reading an article titled Live Monkey Brains is a matter of *choice* and if you think you might be shocked by it you can *choose* not to read it, and if you *do* read it knowing you might be shocked by it then, sorry, you need to take responsibility for the *choice* *you* made. We're not here to hold our readers' hands or coddle them if they find something a bit squicky.

>> ... you need to take responsibility for the *choice* *you* made ... <<

This is the neoliberal laissez faire free market argument where responsibility is shifted on to the custumer as a form of caveat-emptor.

But H2G2 has it's owns standards and rules to adhere to. The question is, is this article acceptable to H2G2 in present form?

In terms of market talk consider H2G2 as a quality assurance agency. Does this article merit the H2G2 quality assurance?

Stone Aart is right, we have a set of guidelines of what makes acceptable content for the edited guide, this entry in its current form does not meet those.

It is not the subject matter. A look through the Guide and you will find quite a lot of entries on articles that may, or may not shock people. A quick one that comes to mind is the How to Skin a Cat entry (by the same researcher I believe) that had the content needed to make it suitable.

There's also many different tones used throughout the Guide to allow us to have a diverse, yet unique "voice" for our readers.

The problem with this entry is not subject matter or tone. The problem with this entry is that there is no entry. It's unsubstantiated rumour and gossip. And as such is not suitable for the edited guide.

Surely the point is that it's probably a myth - the clue is in the title. I've given all the references to the practice that seems to exist and written it in such a way that I (obviously mistakenly) made it clear that this horrific meal isn't actually available.

If we're going to disbar entries on the grounds that the factual content is a bit thin, can we start with culling all the religious entries?

>> If we're going to disbar entries on the grounds that the factual content is a bit thin, can we start with culling all the religious entries?<<

I think this is irrevelent to the issue at hand (whether true or not true). The focus is on this article. Other articles will have their own feedback and discussion.

"This is the neoliberal laissez faire free market argument where responsibility is shifted on to the custumer as a form of caveat-emptor."

I disagree, though I can see why you think I might be saying this. What I am getting at is that with potentially shocking content which is not objectively offensive (actively advocating animal cruelty, for example) there has to be some responsibility on the part of whoever views it. By all means, kick the Entry off with a note saying 'may cause offence' so there can be no doubt that people reading it have been explicitly informed, but to actually wish all shock value removed in the first place is a bit Mary Whitehouse for my taste. I don't want h2g2 to start holding my hand.

However, I do agree (and I have already said this but it appears to need reiterating) that it needs more solid content.

After discussion we have decided to return this to Entry.

It is not suitable for inclusion in the Edited Guide in its present form.


h2g2 Guide Editors