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

Entry: Governments - A3565514
Author: kim deal - U1269086

I would like opinions on my satirical analysis or governments. Be kind - it's my first contribution.
kim deal

It's a mixture of humour and genuine argument, and I'm not sure to what extent it would need to be altered in order to be ready for the Edited Guide. Certainly there are elements of personal bias showing -- e.g. 'Hence, relatively evil rulers... those ‘bobbies on the beat’' -- but there's some factual stuff here too, although it doe dwindle as the Entry goes on.

If you really are prepared to work on a factual Entry on various types of government -- it'll be a big job (since in the case of democracy alone, for example, you haven't gone into notions of representative democracy, liberal democracy, etc.; questions like the proper extent of the power of majority will would really have to be covered), but a worthwhile one. In the meantime, I'm inclined to wait to see what the Scouts say.

thanks for your comments - it's nice to be read. I was aiming for the style of Douglas Adams's own written guide entries, hence the mixture of glibness, bias and fact, all of which was actually intentional. This was a first draft, written quite quickly, I'm happy to make some changes but it was intended to more of a satirical piece than a solid factual entry. If you think it needs more humour I'm happy to work on it a little.

regards
kim

It's more a case of... well, not less humour, but more of an emphasis on being informative. Entries submitted to Peer Review -- i.e. those put forward as suitable for the Edited Guide -- have to meet the Writing-Guidelines; the Edited Guide is intended to be unconventional, as encyclopaedias go, but fundamentally factual, useful and unbiased. It's not a case of trying to recreate the style of the original Guide. If you can write pure fact and make it funny, great; but you don't have to.

At this stage, you have a choice. You could develop this Entry into a more purely factual one; if you want to preserve it the way it is, you could always make a copy. If you don't want to do that, just remove it from PR; it'll still be part of the Guide and will show up on Searches.

It really depends on how prepared you are to write in the style required for the Edited Guide. Have a look at some of the Entries already in there and see what you think.

ok, look, I don't want to fall out but I read the writing guide before starting and feel that this piece is fine in principal. I did a search for government, there was no specific entry so I filled a gap. I aimed to keep to the spirit of the original guide but I wrote with my own voice. I've been writing editorials pieces for friends for over ten years and I'm happy with my talents. I just put this piece up to see what the community would think and to test the water.

I'm going to be a bit blunt with you - you're being a bit patronising and I think you are taking things FAR TOO SERIOUSLY - and yes m'dear - I'm fully aware that capital letters mean I'm shouting. I don't need telling to make a copy - I wrote the thing on my mac then transferred it across after first edit. As to it being biased, writing without bias is not only almost impossible, it's also, in my opinion (IRONY), largely pointless, opinions are what make good writing interesting.

This site is surely intended to be fun - not Britannica. I first read Douglas Adams when you were probably still on the potty - I think I've got a good idea of what he would have hoped for for this place. I'm happy to put more factual material in but the level of depth you're talking about exceed MY intentions for the piece and I therefore have no intention of doing it. I'll be happy to make some minor changes but I'm not writing The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. If my first attempt at getting in doesn't get accepted, so be it, my life will continue, largely unchanged.

Relax, try a cider and black and invest in some T-shirts. They're really very practical garments.
Yours - without malice, I promise
Kim Deal.

ps I'll take it all back if you can tell me who Kim Deal is.

Hi Kim

Sorry, but RFJS is correct that Entries intended for the Edited Guide need to be factual, balanced and non-bias.

However, there are other choices to submit your Entry to; Writing-Alternative for example.

Emmily

Singer in the Breeders.

We're all quite friendly here, you know; we try to give good feedback and help these entries find the right place on the site. It is a fun site, but the Edited Guide itself is factually based. RFJS, in my view, has been quite complimentary and helpful.

You entry is already on the site. It is accessable to anyone who searches for 'Governments'. All RJFS is pointing out is that, regardless of how much humour or irony you inject into the entry, the basis must be factual for it to become part of the Edited Guide. That's all.

why?

Why must they be strictly factual?

I thought this was meant to be in the spirit of the Douglas Adams?

The site was created by DNA. he had a vision to create a Hitchhikers Guide - Earth Edition. However his vision was to provide a guide book to Earth rather than a collection of articles mimicking his previous HHGTTG style. So the site is in the spirit of DNA - but not the HHGTTG.

As with most things - they grow and move on, progress and adapt to the times. I won't pretend to know what DNA would have wanted in todays world - none of truly can - so we and the BBC staff do their best to continue his original idea in todays society in the best way we can.

As this site has gained respectability for its Edited Guide and format, then we have to be more and more true to what is a truthful (even if a humerous representation of) the facts.

The site is fun, there is a place for humour and an odd account of day to day things but all that it is based on is *fact*. For all other writing there is the <./>Underguide</.> - the alternative to the Edited Guide - not something DNA envisaged AFAIK but something that has developed through time and the popularity of the site - a progression that was needed.

that's great but the original row began because I quibbled as to the necessity of everything being absolutely without bias. I don't think it's unreasonible for an entry to display an opinion and a sense of humour, that's all.
I think this should be the end of this thread and we'll agree to differ but I think you're all taking the concept too seriously and I do think he was being patronising.

Lets all keep the peace. If anybody has anything more useful to say than that I should make it three times longer and keep a copy if I want before changing it (doh!) I'll be glad to listen - I really will.

regards
Kim

Hi Everyone,

i am new to the site, and am studying it for a graduate class entitled, "online communities." this thread caught my attention since it is addressing some of the questions i am interested in, such as how the site is separated into these different posting spaces, and how the guidelines are seen by members of the community.

i am interested in conducting short, informal phone interviews about this topic. more information about my project is on my space if you are interested in learning more about it. if you would like to participate in anyway, i would really appreciate it.

leave a message for me on my space, or drop me an email at [email protected].

thanks,
britt