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

I've read through this but don't understand it. What are you aksing for?

You say we cherish the creative flights of fancy from people's journals. What does that mean? That we should allow them into the Edited Guide? But you admit that they don't fit the Guidelines and that you don't want to change the Guidelines.

The Guidelines already encourage people to be as individual as possible, to be interesting and stimulating. This sort of entry is often put into Peer Review and always gets picked before the straight, list of facts style of entry.

But at the end of the day, this is supposed to be The Guide. Not just a guide. It must be easy to understand, and it must guide people. We're not looking for poetry here. We're looking for greater understanding.

I don't entirely understand either. Perhaps if you gave us some examples of what topics you think ought to be in the Guide but aren't because of the way we impose the guidelines?

I mean...the entry that immediately springs into my head is the one about Hell, Michigan. It was written very much in the author's style and came across that way. When I subbed it I had to alter a few things just because they had become too obscure, but on the whole it was still a very individual piece of writing.

When I write entries, I write in the style that I normally write. Even if I was writing for the AWW I would write in the same style (as long as I was writing opinion/exploration obviously).

I'm just as confused as Gnomon. I mean...it's a factual guide...and entries still have humour. In fact if something is too dry and boring we SAY!

Kat

I'm lost too. I attempt to be radical in my entries. However, I recently had abuse in PR for one stylistic device which I started. So I think I may be in favour but am not sure as Kat says there are no examples of what you are meaning.

(I'll just answer Gnomon's post, because I don't have time for others just now)

Asking for... help. To make the EG stimulating, varied and inclusive.

"You say we cherish the creative flights of fancy from people's journals. What does that mean?"

It means we cherish the creative flights of fancy from people's journals
It's to prove the point that the best of h2g2's writing is the stuff that's done creatively and with vim and elan. No, we shouldn't allow them into the Edited Guide (excepting of course non-fiction journal entries and quotable pieces of text).

It's true that the Guidelines encourage people to write in their own style. But since when do people listen to the guidelines? We blame the newbies for not reading the guidelines, but sometimes we consider the eighth guideline - Write in Your Own Style, to be optional (based upon some of the boring entries I've read lately). I hold it as dearly as any other guideline. The Guidelines aren't enough to change the attitudes and style of h2g2. It's just a set of rules - we need action.

"But at the end of the day, this is supposed to be The Guide. Not just a guide."

Alas, that is something we may never accomplish. 7,000 entries is a formidable share of knowledge, but it's not enough to make it a comprehensive encyclopedia. There are other, more complete online encyclopedias, who we have no business competing against because we can't beat them.
And anyway, I wouldn't want a site as special as this to be wasted on something as boring as 'greater understanding' or an encyclopedia. Let's make it a celebration of writing and something truly great.

In that case I'll carry on regardless. I'll be able to lighten up PR now that the election is out of the way.

Hi Gnomon, Kat - I've run out of lunchbreak so I haven't time to take in DD's post or Jodan's answer.

I see it as a difference in approach that we're talking of; Peer Reviewing with a different mind set.

Here's some questions - I'd ask you if you've ever seen entries become less interesting, stimulating or individual during the PR process? Whether you ever see authors get rewarded most for readily including suggestions made by reviewers that don't always fit the original direction or style of their piece? Whether you've ever seen too much readiness among reviewers, wanting to be helpful, to suggest additions and changes before they've really taken in the entry's style and what the entry's actually about?

Sure entries are collaborative to a degree, to the degree that they're run past peers. It's the degree that's part of the question here. There's a point at which collaborative review becomes committee written. That's the sort of thing that removes individual flavour from writing.

The best I can do to put it in a more practical way is to say it's a plea for reviewers to give all entries a read through without the red pen in hand. And to comment first without the red pen.

Got to go, lunchbreak's over.
Waz

Thanks, LLWaz, for that explanation. I agree with what you say - often people suggest additions which detract from the style of the piece. I rarely do this - I usually suggest making entries shorter rather than longer. But nobody ever listens.

Jodan, you seem to be confusing Guide with Encylcopaedia. Encyclopaedias don't guide people. They just provide people with information and leave them to work it out for themselves. Try looking up Encyclopaedia Britannica for the history of Ancient Athens if you don't believe me. The entries all assume you already know a huge amount about Ancient Athens before you start reading. While everything they say is true (presumably), it is not a lot of use. Wikipedia, another well-known encyclopaedia, is approaching this state as well.

A guide is a helpful thing which explains stuff. We're the best online Guide in the Universe at the moment. Let's keep it that way.

What's not to understand? Peer Review doesn't appear to be Peer Review anymore. It seems that it has become a forum for certain elitists to dictate what should and shouldn't go into the Guide on the merits of personal opinion, not community acceptance. I rarely see peer postings amongst the entries in Peer Review, just the same names all the time. The personalities of new researchers are hidden behind the naysayers, the 'I would do it this way and it's what's best' attitude that belittles new concepts and ideas.

While it's appreciated the 'experience' that these few Researchers have in regards to the Guide, there's many Researchers on hootoo who have so much to offer, but get jumped on by these 'oracles' of 'wisdom'. It is disappointing that for a Guide, it seems to have lost the concept of Guiding, and more the idea that it knows best. How can something be worldly when it won't accept all the worldliness that is on offer?

Recently PR has been overrun by dross, yes...but wasn't that expected. There's some brilliant stuff in there now, which needs encouraginement and not pigeon-holing away. Take A4015153 , A4028078 and A3983132 for example. The best I've seen for a long time. I've been guilty of the mundane, but I think that's because I've had some of my inspiration curtailed - these entries have given me passion anew, something can be learnt from these.

I think it's easy to confuse the Guide with an Encyclopaedia now...and the fact that some Guide Entries have been relocated to Wikepedia (take this one for example: A839478 ) concerns me. If the Guide is to survive it needs to rejuvenate itself and become a little more imaginative and not lose itself amongst petty one-up-manship and elitism.

I think that's what Jodan may be fighting for, it's certainly what I believe, but although I may not be considered a wordsmith as a long time participant of the h2g2 community I feel that if things aren't altered, then hootoo will dsappear, just as Get Writing did so recently.

There's people who have been given badges of authority and leadership. Let's not abuse this priviledge and work together to keep the dream that Douglas had alive, or it won't evolve. There's too many Researchers who concentrate on the 'I don't do that' belief. Hootoo isn't personal, it's a community, run by peers. Who wants to see h2g2 disappear into the halls of a Vogonist filing system? Not me.

HF

Hoopy Frood.

Normally, I'd probably get into the semantics of the thing and the fine details (except one - I did not confuse Guide and encyclopedia, I was making a point), but any questions that you have can probably be answered in Post 8.

Can I come in too?

The original point here was Gnomon's, echoed by Kat and DD. What are we getting at?

First of all, guys, were certainly not criticising your contributions. You're all prolific and you all care - like us, in fact.

I personally think that PR is pushing conformity too hard these days. For me, the most important point made in the PROD article is the one about reading every Entry for pleasure before measuring it against the Guidelines.

I also think that this point is related to the one about the prevalence of lightweight articles. An over-prescriptive PR tends to filter out unconventional Entries and let through anodyne ones.

We've got into the habit, all of us, of using the Guidelines as a negative filter. They've become a series of boxes to put crosses into, a kind of checklist of transgressions.

If we must have a checklist, let it have tick-boxes. That way we'll pick Entries that have many good things about them, rather than just having no bad things about them.

Hoopy frood, I really need to understand something. Anybody, anybody can review a PR entry. There is nothing elitist about it. You can comment, I can do it, anyone can do it. Also, none of the reviewers have any power to get an author to change their mind. Most of the people who have been here a while and who have submitted entries to PR and know how it works have a kind of instinctive knowledge about what works and what doesn't. There is no training involved, no rite of passage, nothing. It's just a case of reviewing the content, wondering if there is anything that can be done to improve it and commenting accordingly. The Writing Guidelines sanction is normally an instinctive one - someone has submitted an entry in the first person or has written totally inappropriate content like fiction or a poem.

I have been here 6 years and I have to say that apart maybe from year 1 (when there was no PR so the issue is moot anyway), the content of Peer Review and the issues it faces have not changed very much. It's still the same PR as it was back then, with mostly different reviewers to today, but nevertheless the same types of comments were made about entries back then as they are done now.

I absolutely disagree that what goes into the guide is based on personal opinion - the writing guidelines are there for the author as well as the reviewers to understand what constitutes community acceptance. And quite honestly it works very well most of the time.

If you rarely see peer postings among the entries in Peer Review, then is that the fault of us "elitists"? No, it's because reviewing is a commitment in the community that some people make to improving it, and not for everyones tastes. It takes a lot of time, something that some people commit to doing, while other researchers do not have this time. It's a bit insulting, frankly, to be castigating people who make this commitment as elitists.

Peer Review can be difficult to understand at first, but when you get used to it it's a marvellous device. Yes, initially you might feel a bit chastened when your work of art is put under the microscope, but generally in my experience the piece leaves PR in a better shape than when it entered. Most reviewers are courteous and honest about what they like and don't like, and the author can always say that it's noted, but that they disagree. It's not a one-way street.

The thing about PR is that each researcher is different: some will be very critical, others very pedantic, others will want other things written, others full of praise. I like its organic nature. You never really know what to expect when you submit something to PR, but one thing is for sure: you normally get an honest reaction from different people.

To be honest I am confused by what you want to see changed. Some of you seem to be saying that all us "elitists" should just shut up and suspend our critical skills with gritted teeth, while others of you just want some small chipping at the edges. I think we all have different perspectives on this. Some of the entries that you noted appear to be perfectly suitable to the EG, but what's wrong with a bit of honest reaction about them?

I will agree one thing: we should try to be less mundane. Other places are better than us in that respect and good luck to them. There is nothing in the writing guidelines however that forces people to be mundane. But it's just that you seem to be somewhat frothy in terms of the proposal. In fact I think that's naturally how we are evolving anyway. We want to be different to Wikipedia et al, and the standard of recent entries seems to be reflecting this gradual change.

Rubbish, Hoopy Frood. We only say nay to the ones that are dead in the water from the start - the "mostly harmless" style of entry. If it has any potential at all, we'll try and encourage it. Peer Review is the healthiest it has been in years, with lots of new stuff coming in, some of it very unusual and funny. Have a look at "Ra-Ra-Rasputin" recently or "Feet" at the moment. THese entries met with nothing but praise.

The only bad trend in Peer Review at the moment is that some researchers insist on putting in entries that are far too long.

Yeah if you are going write an entry about something from Douglas's Guide at least make it differerent.

After all I ahve written up Jodrell BAnk, Digital Watches and something else which escapes me at present simply because they were mentioned in the radio, tv and book forms of hootoo. Someone accused me of writing these up to get quotes from the book in I did it becuase these are just some of the entires that fans of the book would expect to find in the guide sort of footnotes to DNA's writing.

Nice to see this has provoked people's passion. After all, we want progress, not to take the backwards step into obscurity. The time is now to make h2g2 a household name, especially with the release of the films, the revitalised radio series and the potential for more ('Restaurant' looks like a real possibility). I appreciate other people's opinions on the matter and thanks to all for explaining their viewpoints to me, as I explained mine. What I don't appreciate is being told my opinion is rubbish, but that's another matter and one I won't dwell on.

I think Pinniped bought up the fact that PR seems to concentrate too much on what's WRONG with an Entry, not what's RIGHT with it. It's too long, it's not edited properly, the spelling is bad, the Guide ML is wrong, there's a picture in it, the Subs won't like it etc. Sure an Entry is difficult to read sometimes when these factors are apparent, but the general feel of a lot of wonderful work is pushed away because the expectations and the wish for all Entries to conform to a limited style is embarassing to see, especially in regards to new Researchers work. We want different ideas and unique Entries? Well let's accept them when they first appear, instead of immediately criticising for not following Writing Guidelines. After all, they are just Guidelines, the community as a whole decides what goes into the Edited Guide, don't they?

I'm also all for the philosophy behind mentoring 'newbies'. The ACE system, the "Hitchhike your way into the Edited Guide" plan, even the "Scouts out Scouting" for you. But there's a subtle difference between mentoring to develop a voice and telling someone how they must write to be accepted. Perhaps 'elitist' was the wrong term to use, but I often cringe when I see what some other Researchers have written in regards to what is someone's heartfelt work. I'm not suggesting the biting of tongues at all, just a little more leniency towards those beginners. Not everyone reads Guidelines, sure...but perhaps we sould get off our 'high-horses', so to speak. There's times I myself have felt condescending towards other Researchers, but on the most I do try to be positive in remarks. But I'm the last to think I know best.

I think I bought up in another forum how PR should also support those Researchers who wish to try other elements of h2g2 into accepting their work and ideas. I'll quote what I wrote because I can't be bothered repeating it (I'm lazy like that);

"Sure we've had a load of unsuitable entries in PR lately. If the
Researcher posting them is genuinely interested and has made a silly
mistake because a. they've not been ACE'd or b. haven't really
understood the process, I'm fairly positive that these types of
Researchers will stick it out and want the buzz of getting an Entry
in the Edited Guide (I myself was one of these when I first began on
hootoo.)

Those that post and run, why bother wasting valuable time on these
types of Researchers. So there'll be an unsuitable Entry in PR for
a few weeks? Bah. I'm sure the servers can handle it, it's just up
to us Scouts and the Italics to get rid of the dross a few weeks
down the line. The filtering system works fine.

Although I must say, when I first began submitting to PR the
constraining editing type of Scout did fluster me, and nearly put me
off the site. I think it needs to be instilled into newbies that PR
is about Peer Review, suggestions can be made, but in no way does
any advice HAVE to be followed. It might mean that it's a longer
wait for a EG Entry, but again, if they mean business, they'll stick
it out.

There's so much more to h2g2 than PR and the Edited Guide, I think
as Scouts we need to reinforce this idea. There's AGG, UG and lord
knows how many community groups and The Post that I'm sure many
newbies will be involved in if they're a little put off by people in
PR, particularly those who want Researchers to write Entries just
like theirs. That's not the idea and by gum I had to make a few
artistic differences in writing some of my stuff, which is a shame
(my two cents there).

Why let one or two bad eggs spoil the farming process?"

It's more I've found PR very ritualistic to some degree lately. More often than not I see remarks like; "This Entry is not suitable for PR, take it out". Why not add a bit more. It's not suitable for PR sure, why not try AGG, or UG, the Post, your own Journal, ask h2g2, even suggest other hootoo communities for these new Researchers to find somewhere to let their imaginations out (especially the ones from Get Writing - the 'poets'). When I first started on hootoo I was thankful that there was a Scout in PR who suggested I try my luck at the Post with something I submitted. I did and in it went, I found my voice and then progressed onto PR later when I had more confidence. But I see less and less of that type of Scouting and it upsets me. Too often I see the one stop researcher. And why are they one-stop? Because they try one area and are admonished into being quiet. Promote the whole of hootoo! PR is just one tiny little area. I love the job the Underminers do, why can't Scouts for PR do the same. I think I once did, long ago, actually push another Researchers Entry into PR and was duly told 'That's not the way it's done.' And why not?

We need to be more open and accepting to new ideas or it's just going to become stagnant and unfortunately fade away (like GEt Writing, as I already mentioned). I sure as heck don't want that.
HF

Apologies, Hoopy Frood, for calling your opinions rubbish. It's just my shorthand for "I really, really, really disagree with you".

>>After all, they are just Guidelines, the community as a whole decides what goes into the Edited Guide, don't they?

No. The Editors decide. The Community makes recommendations.

*looks up at the little fish riding his bicycle*

"on h2g2, YOU decide what goes into the Guide..."

oh. my mistake
HF

Hoopy, the standard of entries in PR at the moment is by and large quite excellent. I don't actually see the problem that other people are referring to. We have had a ton of really really good entries pass through PR in the last couple of weeks. People's writing standards *are* improving, partially I think by articles such as Ben's and the other introspective threads around here have all given us pause for thought.

You mention the writing guidelines a few times, but, in fairness, the "Read the Writing Guidelines" sanction is only used for the most unsuitable entries. You seem to be presuming that everybody who enters PR are going to get hit with this - they don't. If they have an entry worth it's salt, even potentially, it's given a lot of very constructive attention. We have a limited set of reviewers, with normal human emotions, that quite frankly would prefer to be reviewing good entries than trying to weed out the dross.

The Writing Guidelines are there as a minimum standard. We get rid of them then everything becomes subjective, PR becomes a battleground and the high standards to which you are expecting will disappear. You *don't* achieve high standards by dissolving your minimum expected guidelines.

You seem to be advocating that we leave everything in, so long as a some people subjectively think it's good. Well, how do we then come to a consensus on how we criticise an entry then?

I'll say it again: if we want to see excellent entries become the norm in PR, then it's up to us: you, me, everyone who feels passionate about H2G2 to *write* excellent entries.

We should stop trying to blame this that or the other as a reason why excellent entries are not written, because the support for those arguments are just not there. People are using a lot of anecdotal information to back up their viewpoints and have not taken the time to systematically go through each entry and decide whether we are really doing the bad job that you suggest we are doing.

The fish on the bicycle is only on display if you are in Alabaster, which is no longer supported. The Brunel people, which is 95% of researchers, don't see the fish.

I agree that the entries in PR are excellent at the moment. Some of them are more than excellent. You say I presume everyone gets hit with the Guidelines. Well, yes they do. In some way shape or form, of course they do. But I am horrified in the way that some are told about the Guidelines. I still believe there are some who believe it is their job and their job alone to dictate what is suitable and I think you highlight that point very nicely. 'We have a limited set of reviewers' We do? I thought EVERYONE could review. It is after all PEER review. Again, I'm mistaken about the standards and philosophy promoted by h2g2. The fish on the bicycle may only be seen by 5% of hootooers? So the other 95% you state don't get told about the fact that it's THEM who decide what goes in this 'greatest online Guide in the universe' just muddle along, believing their ideas aren't worth a pinch of 'salt'? The delusions of grandeur some people have set themselves are shooting us all in the foot. These reviewers you talk about 'quite frankly would prefer to be reviewing good entries than trying to weed out the dross' Who defines the dross? These limited reviewers you mention? This is the point I was trying to make. The dross may be 'weeded out' as you so positively put it, but where is the 'dross' put? I'm not advocating everything should be left in PR to be put in the Edited Guide at all, I'm suggesting that Entries unsuitable for the EG should be given a chance elsewhere on the hootoo, but that argument seems to be forgotten.

And you seem to think I'm trying to lay the blame for a dull and boring potentially encyclopaedic Guide at someone's door. Not at all, I think it IS up to us to address the situation and by provoking opinion and discussion like this aren't we pushing the fact that some Researchers feel disillusioned by the way the PR process is manufacturing clone writers? You mention a 'bad job WE are doing'? Who's this 'we'? Everyone in the hootoo community? And I'm not at all saying things are bad, I'm quite happy with PR, as I stated, I think the filtering system works just fine. What I am saying is that the process at the moment seems to be limiting and putting constraints on potentially wonderful ideas.

Think about this Entry that might have been dropped into PR (and forget about the reference please, I'm trying to make a point); "Towel. A towel is about the most massively useful thing a someone can carry. You can wrap it around you for warmth, sunbathe on it, huddle beneath it and even dry yourself with it, if it still seems clean enough."

What would the current PR do with that? I'm afraid to think. Let's just try to be a little more positive before we go and destroy a potential great things.

When I said limited I meant that there are only a limited number of people with the commitment, dedication and time to comment on entries in PR, and make the entries as good as they can be. You know as well as I do that there are no rites of entry into PR. Anyone can join. It's just that only a few people are able to.

And again, where is the evidence that everyone gets hit with the guidelines? No, only some people do when they submit inappropriate entries to PR. Other people have read them, accept them, and proceed ahead with gusto, producing as a result in some cases, some of the best examples of writing on the Internet. The Writing Guidelines didn't stop them from producing masterpieces.

And also, the main experience with unsuitable entries is that in general we do recommend other places for these entries to go. Ask, The Post, AWW etc. It's already a standard part of PR.

You see, if you get rid of the Guidelines, the whole affair of criticism becomes subjective. Literary criticism comes to the fore, rather than factual criticism which is much easier to understand. Literary criticism is all about conflicting opinion and arguments on style rather than fact. You seem to be suggesting that we open the door to fiction, to poetry, to single-person meanderings. Fine, but it seems to me that criticising these things is a lot harder than what we are doing at the moment, and it brings with it a whole heap of new problems that we would have to deal with.

Regarding the DNA "towel" entry. DNA himself had a role in setting a standard for the Guide. Early on, the community itself decided that DNA style entries were not what we were about, mainly because most of us are not as funny as him. It would be one hell of a boring place if all we were doing was to puppet the DNA style. DNA knew exactly what went on here and from what I glean from his writings he was very proud of it - proud enough to lobby strenuously on our behalf to find us a home within the BBC.