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

Entry: International Driving Laws - A251182
Author: Anna - former insider - U25

True, amazing, and incredibly useful to know.
However, we can't notify Douglas Adams,
though...

Doug, would you be so very kind as to go here PeerReview. Find this entry in the list at the bottom of the page (you may have to click on the link that takes you to a page of more conversations) and see if there's a little 'x' next to it. If there is, please click on that 'x'. If there isn't, please let us know. Thank you for your attention.

You should only submit your own work to Peer Review. Unfortunately, a problem with the site is that right now it's possible to submit anyone's entry to Peer Review. But, not only does DNA's entry not follow the Writing-Guidelines we now have, you wouldn't be able to make any changes to it if you were to submit it to PR and people were to make corrections or suggestions. Please read the Guidelines to find out what is appropriate for submission to Peer Review.

"But, not only does DNA's entry not follow the Writing-Guidelines"

Y'know, I've been wondering about that credit. It says in post 1 that Anna is the author, and on the (unedited) entry she's the editor and DNA's the researcher/writer. She must have started the entry and then entered DNA as co-author

But the text is DNA's, isn't it? I read it in the Salmon of Doubt - I think it's one of his columns from the Independent.

I'm not sure. It certainly sounds like DNA's writing but I haven't read The Salmon of Doubt. If it's an unedited entry with Anna credited as the editor, she must have created the entry in the first place and added DNA as a contributing Researcher. Don't know why it should have been done that way in this instance but that's how the old style crediting (like, before the new fangled custom credits) worked, and still does. If you create an entry and then add my name to it, I'd be the writer and you'd be the editor because you have editing rights on the entry but I don't.

Yes, I compared it to the bit in the Salmon of Doubt: it's the same article, from the Independent on Sunday in January 2000. I also remember hearing Simon Jones read it on the audiobook. In case anyone wants a page number, it's on page 21 of the second edition American paperback.

So I guess Anna must have added it and credited DNA.

And the date on the entry is January 21st 2000 Which apparently was a Friday. Well, there wouldn't have been any Italics working on a Sunday - they'd all be at church

As far as I can see, the only way it doesn't fit the writing guidelines is that it's written like Douglas Adams, which is understandable.
PS: What does this have to do whith its being in the Salmon of Doubt, and why am I allowed to submit someone else's work for Peer Review if I'm not supposed to?

And, this peice is not edited on DNA's personal space.

You are able to submit work written by other people because at the time h2g2 was designed they thought this would be a good thing. After that, the staff was reduced dramatically so they no longer have the resources to tidy up other people's work - now it is expected that you only submit your own work and you do all the tidying yourself.

As for the suitability of the piece itself, well, the main thing wrong with it is that it is an opinion piece. Edited Guide Entries are not supposed to be opinion pieces, but descriptions of the world. It could probably be changed to become suitable, but I doubt anybody would be comfortable with rewriting Douglas Adams's words.

Read the guidelines again Doug - you'll see that it falls foul of a couple of them.

"why am I allowed to submit someone else's work for Peer Review if I'm not supposed to?"
We've tried to get the 'Submit for review' button removed from any but our own entries a couple of times, but apparently it's a useful tool to the people at the UnderGuide so it stays for the time being. We've been told that the software can have it on all review forums or none - it can't be removed from just one while staying on others.

Can we move this back to entry please? It's quite clearly not meant to be here.

I'll second that.

Anyone already got a list, or should I start one?

I would start one, but my last list was... ignored. You go ahead

Just bump yours, but I'll create one as well anyway.

Putting this on my current list.