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

I think it would be infinitely useful if we added a small qualification for new Scouts: the candidate must have written something for the Guide, submitted through Peer Review. The benefits:

- First-hand knowledge of what it takes to produce a Guide entry.
- Appreciation for the Peer Review system from the author's standpoint.
- Sensitivity to the author when offering criticism.

And some other stuff, too.

That's a pretty neat idea. I'd add to that a requirement to have found one good entry in the Unedited Guide and submitted it (or convinced the author to submit it) to Peer Review or the Writing Workshop.

Do we require Subeditors to have written anything for the Guide?

I'm not saying I disagree with your points Colonel, I'm just wondering if maybe that shouldn't be extended to Subs as well...

May I add that the candidate must at least once have visited the lower end of Peer Review as well?

heehee - if we keep this up then we'll have ourselves a set of hazing initiation rites in no time...

I don't know about the "dig up something" qualification... mostly because it's an aspect of the job that I don't indulge in too much. It seems sort of like finding a needle in a haystack to me.

Now, Subs following that same requirement of writing for the Guide first, that sounds pretty reasonable...

Hello,

I'm not as keen on requiring them to nominate articles for Peer Review or dredge its depths, but I think it's a good idea for scouts to write an entry and submit to Peer Review or at least have a record of contributing useful feedback in Peer Review for a while before they become a scout. I personally was haunting Peer Review for months before I was a scout, and I think it helped me immensely.

Yours,
Jake

I'm not talking about 'digging up something' (though I did this just now, shame on me), but IMHO the mass of commentators doesn't go further down than the first red LED when visiting the PR. The recent rush of new researchers has also brought a rush of new postings which caused some threads to pass unnoticed by anybody.

Seems like the best solution would just be an informal requirement that applicants be experienced with Peer Review and the Workshop, rather than lotsa rules and regs. Flexibility, ya know?

Ah, but how do you define "experienced"?

Anyway, I don't find that one Guide entry is such an arduous requirement... after all, most of us Scouts have many. And having others review your work gives you a perspective that simple practice in PR and the Workshop simply don't give you.

Hello,

True. It's important that people should be willing to go down past the first page of Peer Review, especially since there are some real gems to be found there. In any case, I'm not going to advocate any strict rules, but I think nobody should become a scout without spending some time in Peer Review first. This gives them an idea of how Peer Review works, shows that anybody should feel welcome to wade into Peer Review (some people seem to think that only scouts can comment or that a scout's views are much more legitimate than other comments - both unfortunate mistakes). Also, it gives the Italics an idea of your behaviour when you become a scout (so people who are rude and not very helpful would not be made scouts until they changed their style; this isn't a current problem (all my fellow scouts seem very professional), but a hypothetical situation here)

Yours,
Jake

I rather like the way we open volunteering up to anyone who is keen, instead of requiring too many prerequisites for volunteering. h2g2 is quite an educational site, where people can come along and *learn* about things like subbing, scouting and so on, for free. The only real exception is subbing, where (of course) you need to show you can sub to a reasonable standard.

On the other hand, the ideas here are worth considering. Quite how we'd know if someone has been heavily involved in Peer Review without manually going to take a look, I'm not sure, but if it could be automated, then it's be a handy stat to use as a guide. We already look at applicants' Personal Spaces, which tells us a lot about them, but in the future, when we've got time to be more detailed in the selection process, then this *might* be a good idea.

But then again, it might not. What a cop out!

Hello,

Yeah, I don't really think we need a lot of rules and regulations. Still, I see there being certain things that like Lucinda says could help you in the selection process but aren't required (I know, the subject was entries). But strict rules would just be too much paperwork and regulations to be bearable.

Yours,
Jake

I certainly hope it isn't a requirement to write an aritcle that gets into the edited guide.

Although I agree that writing an article at least one time should be a requirement. It seems like by looking at their personal spaces you can see at the bottom what articles they've written. If it isn't a requirement at least it should be something to take into consideration. I think that the article I put into peer review was quite an eye opening experience.

ah, well, I'm done now.

I can understand how writing an entry would be a good requirement for Subs, but why for Scouts? We're after people who can spot a good entry a mile off, but that's not the same skill as writing one.

Lots of people know what books they like, but far fewer actually write one...

It would be that simple if all the Scouts did was pick good entries. But more importantly, we're giving feedback. People who are going to be giving a lot of feedback should understand what it is like to receive it. And people who are going to be choosing for the Guide should be familiar with what the Guide standards are. I think that if everyone had already written something for the Guide, we'd have far fewer growing pains with new Scouts. There wouldn't be so many picks rejected by the staff. That would mean less work for you and your people, and less e-mail clutter for the volunteers.

And anyway, we're not exactly producing the great American novel here... I've got some things in the Guide that I'll admit aren't terribly well done...

"It's worth noting at the outset that being a Scout does not tie you down to any specific obligations - that would go against the whole nature of h2g2."
(from 'What do scouts do')

OK, but where does that say anything about the guidelines for becoming a scout.

I would say that the idea is to get people who really want to do the job for free in their spare time instead of people who just want a cool red thingy on their personal space.

Hello,

Yes, but you are expected to do some tasks if you expect to remain a Scout. There are no financial or legal obligations (it is a strictly volunteer position), but it doesn't mean that Scouts can just slack off completely.

Yours,
Jake

I agree with both of you. Actually, I was wondering if that quote had anything to do with it before I gave my opinion. I think the ide of scouts writing entries would higher the qualities even more on h2g2, so I'm postitive for the suggestion!