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

What should scouts do if they see articles on Peer Review page that are so horribly bad that there is no way they'd ever get Edited?

I cite as an example one particular Researcher who writes one-paragraph entries that are not in the least informative, instructive, or accurate. He (she?) doesn't ever provide a link or number to the article, the articles are heavily opinionated, and sound a lot like a 10-year-old with too much summer vacation on his (her) hands.

And what's the policy on people who post their articles not because they think the articles should get Edited, but because they just want attention? I cite as another example an article about a terrorist attack which gives very little information about terrorism, but expounds at length on how sad and horrible that particular attack was.

I sent an e-mail to scouts egroup, but as of September 6th, no one has answered. I think this is something that should be addressed sooner than later, and I don't think many people want to touch this subject, much like American politicians don't want to touch the failed drug war. This situation (not really a problem) isn't going to go away...Although most people in H2G2 are very polite and civilized, there is the small cadre of Internet jerks who delight in annoying and offending other people. What is the Scouts' role in dealing with these people? Should we have an active role, or should we defer to H2G2 higher-ups?

Wampus

If it is offensive, or breaks the site rules, then send it up to The Towers. However, if it is just Entries which will not get into the Edited Guide, then give critisism, point out why you do not think it will get in, in its present form. Point them to the Writing Guidelines. Encourage them. If they ask for specific help, then give it to them I would have thought that no matter what reason the Researcher had for putting up the Entry for PR, we just treat it as a serious attempt to get into the Edited Guide. It would seem the easiest way forward, and if they are attention seeking eedjits, then calm and rational critisism is the most likely way to irritate them Which is always fun Until later.....
BCNU - Crescent

Maybe we could just rubber stamp a link to the guidelines and a quick, "Er, no."

...wishful thinking.