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

http://www.h2g2.com/A402940 - Staple Removers

OK, it's not great. It's barely good. It looks like it was done in text mode. It's jumbled in places.

It was submitted to peer review on Jul 27, 2000. It received some comments, but I don't know if any changes were made to it.

But I feel there is information in this thing that would make a good entry. A Subeditor should be able to pull an Edited Entry out of this.

So my question for the group - do we not recommend this because it is bronze instead of gold?

OK, the Researcher may have ignored the Scouts' suggestions toward improving it, but like Amy said on 28 August, 'It would be a shame if this article disappeared from view. It needs some work -- but not that much -- and has the makings of a useful, factual and informative article.'

I happen to agree with her.

Any thoughts?

This might be a bit of a radical suggestion - wah-hay! - but how about this. If the original author seems to have disappeared and isn't going to make any improvements to their entry, then, assuming you let them know throughout the process via their Space, this might be an idea:

* Find someone who is willing to take the entry and to add enough stuff to bring it up to recommended status.

* Put a bit in at the end asking for both Researchers X and Y to be credited when the entry is edited.

* Send it through the PR system again and take it from there.

Pros: the entry gets to be of good quality without relying on a Sub to re-write it. We should be ensuring the the PR system delivers top quality entries into the Subs queue, rather than relying on the Subs to pull not-quite-there entries up to the required standard.

Cons: The original author might not like what's done to their entry and might get annoyed that something has been changed without their input (even though they've declined to give it). On the other hand, that's what the Sub would do if it went through without being added to, and at least this system is more open.

Any comments?

Sounds like a winner to me Mark, you've outlined both the pros and the cons very well.
~§~
§hadow
http://www.h2g2.com/u133044

I recently experienced a similar problem with two entries written by a researcher who has not been seen around now for well over three months. Therefore, all the suggestions that have been posted to the entry have gone unnoticed. and the entries remain unchanged, which is a pity since a little work and they would be perfect.

This I can see as being a little flaw in the Peer Review system, as it does not take into account that some people lose interest, and go off on their merry way. It sounds like the researcher of the staple remover entry may have done the same.

One possible line of action goes along the following lines. Since we cannot modify the entry though informing the user (since they're missing, presumed fed), why not make a copy of the entry. This copy could then be modified with the comments supplied in the peer review and forums, post the link to its peer thread and then inform the towers of what has gone on.

Possible problems:
Plaigirism
Scout that modifies the entry won't be able to submit it themselves
Would this count as a collabarative effort, or just the Scouts imprtession of what the entry should look like after a few improvemnts.

Damn, should have checked for postings while I was writing

I think you guys seem to have it - make a copy of the entry, and have another researcher re-write it. However, I've read that staple-remover article, and there's no real information in there. There's a text description of the remover, and a explanation of what it's for, but it's stuff that anybody could write after looking for a few minutes at a staple remover.

There are other entries that do have good information in them, but should be re-written. I think it's a shame that the forum on the 'God' entry has stagnated - if somebody were to edit it down to the Christian/Jewish God references, you'd have a really good article.

I agree that entries that are given to subs should be of a really good standard, and I like the idea of someone taking over a project if it comes to a standstill.

If an author doesn't react to an entry after, say, four weeks (just to pick a completely random time frame) then under these special circumstances, a member of the Community is at leave to fill in the gaps in an entry, in much the same way that a sub would have done under the old system. Then they can post the new entry number to the thread under Peer Review and it can be re-reviewed. Which is a good thing. Also, both/all Researchers can be credited, which will make it a collaborative effort, which is also a good thing