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

People may have heard the phrase 'ignoring the elephant in the room', usually used to describe a situation where people are ignoring an obvious, and large, subject in a conversation - carefully steering around the subject to avoid embarrasment or unpleasant outcomes.

Come on then - How long before Wikipedia drives the final nail into the H2G2 coffin ?

Whats good, different or valuable about H2G2 that will keep it around ?

Whats so good about Wikipedia ?

Why did two similar things come about anyway ?

What's different about it? Well, it's more experimental and off-beat. H2 that is. It's got a whole community there too. Some great, interesting entries there too (not that you'd know it by looking at today's front page first entry ) that are internet originals. You couldn't find find A583300 or A625592 in Wikipedia.

I don't personally like Wikipedia, except when I'm researching something and am stuck. I go to the Wikipedia page, look, hopefully get a bolt of lightning and start googling around and perhaps looking through a reference book or two.

I do love h2g2 So they can't be that similar. Their processes for creating and updating articles is the difference between black and white. Even so, I reckon Wikipedia came into being because h2 doesn't have quite the high profile on the web as wikipedia does. Or something like that

"In April 1999, Adams initiated the h2g2 collaborative writing project, a forerunner of the wiki medium."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Adams

When it comes to pure fact, Wikipedia is streets ahead of h2g2. It's many times more useful as a research tool than we are and it's much more well known, but that's really about as far as Wikipedia goes. Some of the folks here often like to play up the 'quirkiness' of h2g2, but I think that aspect goes too far on occasions. Doing anything for its own sake is almost always a complete waste of time, and trying to be different purely for the sake of being different is just pissing in the wind. It's got the stench of death all over it.

Seen from the outside, h2g2 can be looked upon as a bunch of geeks and nerds who really ought to get out more, but the fact is that the community here has become more than just that. There are parts of it though that are too and some for even me. There most certainly are some people here who need to get a life outside of h2g2.

Wikipedia and h2g2 can only be compared inasmuch as they are both websites trying to compile a knowledge base. They both go about it in different ways and they both have different priorities. And we frequently talk about Wikipedia and their effect on h2g2... or not.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/18/wikipedia_quality_problem/

I've got nothing further to add, other than I prefer Uncyclopedia over Wikipedia. At least with Uncyclopedia you know where you properly stand with supposed "facts"

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

The way I see it is; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the Edited Guide of h2g2 is a Guide with a soul, the soul being made up from the community that surrounds the Guide.

yes - thats a very nice distinction
theres a place in the world for everyting perhaps (or nearly everything....but that's another thread...)

This post has been removed.

It is a nice distinction, but a flawed one I think. The proportion of the h2g2 community that actually contributes to the Guide (with a capital 'G') is, I reckon, pretty small. The community may encourage people who *do* contribute to stick around, but although I wouldn't like to hazard a guess at the percentages, I reckon it's very small proportion of active Researchers who are involved in the EG, PR, the UnderGuide and The Post. Most others are just using this as a place to hang out.