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

Amy, let me try to explain this better.
ANSWER is a meaningless acronym. It was my suggestion for the name of the thing because Pin suggested PROD, which was much, much better, so we went with that. I don't remember what ANSWER stood for. A new something or other perhaps.

When I implied that we were going to show them the answer, that makes sense in context of the emails Pin and I had been exchanging. It doesn't make a lot of sense on its own, mostly because I don't actually think we have all the answers - which is why the PROD page is an opinion piece, identifying what we see as a problem. I do feel the need to defend the PROD ideals when it's attacked, but because there haven't been many constructive comments on how to make it better (I've made suggestions and defended them from attacks, I'm not inflexible... I would have responded better to other suggestions rather than attacks on the suggestions), this really hasn't been shown.

Mina-
As I said, I don't perceive mediocre as an insult. When Gnomon called my stuff mediocre, I was glad, because I usually got the idea he disliked it from PR threads. I don't know the exact definitions of mediocre and don't really want to get into a war of semantics, but I'll say that if it really does have more negative connotations than I expected it to have, then I apologize for that word usage.

Teaswill simulposted db, which is how his post got out of sync. It was a reply to F2111414?thread=643760&post=7049884#p7049884

Ben

I think most people feel mediocre is probably a bit insulting, Jodan.

Doesn't this demonstrate what I was saying about confusion of terms?

*sigh*

Ben

"I'm afraid that what comes over to me from the 'Inspire me sealboy' thread & this PROD page, is a clique that thinks they're right, that their opinion is better than other people's. "

Well, I don't think we're a clique for starters. I had barely spoken a word to some of the PROD associates now joined. Pin, Waz and I are friends, but we're a diverse group - comprised of a seal, a bird and a sheep. We also have very different ideas.
I wouldn't take the Inspire Me thread at face value, because so much of it is out of context and in emails- like when Amy mistook a little bit of peppiness on my part for a piece of a jigsaw in a conspiracy. It's sort of like taking a second draft of Shakespeare (not to be comparing us to the Bard, but I hope you see what I'm driving at). You'll see all sorts of ideas that were gotten rid of and replaced with better ones.

One example I can think of is with the UnderGuide discussions. If you like in the earliest discussions, there were plans for things that don't even remotely resemble what we have now. I can't imagine someone interrogating a miner and saying "What happened to the Power Grab scheme? You got something to hide!?"

i'll second jodan on that one. the PROD document, is, as far as i'm concerned, just the *bare minimum* of common ground between us all. in fact, when the aforementioned email exchanges were going on, i hardly had a clue as to what it all meant.

~ db

Doesn't everyone on the planet think that they are right?

I have a bumper-sticker in my kitchen that says "Don't believe everything you think".

*sigh*

The PRODders have concerns about PR and concerns about the EG.

They said so.

Big deal.

Ben

I might be wrong, but I think you're right.

>> Doesn't everyone on the planet think that they are right? <<

not only that, but they also think that others think that they (the others) are right, when in fact it's just the others just *thinking* they (the others) are right, when in fact they're not.



~ db

Are you guys up late or up early? It's lunchtime here, but I worry about sleep deprivation amongst you USians.

Ben

up late. my sleep schedule has gone to waterloo since school got over last week.

~ myself

Past lunchtime here, B.

Greetings from Krakow.

m

I *do* like h2g2!

Ben

Fair enough, I was only giving my perception. I agree with whoever said (Oojakapiv, I think) there's nothing (or very little anyway)that can't be improved. The question is, who sets the standard?

It just strikes me that you want to set the standard because you think the present one isn't good enough. Perhaps I've got that wrong.

Not me guv. I'm no PRODder.

Jodan? Pin? Waz? dancingbuddha?

Ben

Teaswill, to pick up on the issue of standards, I think one of the strengths of the EG is that there is no judgement of quality involved. The boundaries are very close to the ground and anyone who is functionally literate can write a piece that meets the EG criteria.

There is no insistence on 'good' writing in the EG and researchers can have confidence that their work won't be compared to other people's work. They won't be told their writing isn't good enough - just, if necessary, what they need to do to make it match the criteria.

As you've noted, the introduction of a 'good writing' criterion would be a mistake because whose standards should prevail? Who decides what is good?

Which is why I am critical of PROD because it seems to me that 'deciding what's good' is what PROD is trying to do.

Yes, valuing some kinds of writing above others does seem to be a central tenet of PROD.

where did we say that we wanted to set standards for "good" writing for the EG?

yes, we seem to like creative writing over some other kinds. that doesn't mean we're saying that all writing for the EG should be creative, or even that what writing is in there isn't creative. we're saying that the guidelines can be interpreted differently to include some creative writing that currently gets left out. why is that hard to understand?

Amy, I do think you have a point that one of the strengths of the EG is that it doesn't impose standards for writing. I need to think about that one a bit more.

The UG does have "quality" as a criterion, and we have rejected pieces because they failed on that count.

Hmmm.

I am getting more and more of the opinion that what is driving this may be envy that EG entries have a formal status that UG entries do not have.

Those of us who strove for the UnderGuide strove for the UG to have that formal status but - for reasons that I personally think are pretty footling - the ongoing decision of various Italics is that it should not.

However they are paid to make that decision, and I am happy to abide by it.

Isn't one of the main benefits of the UnderGuide the fact that it takes the pressure off the Edited Guide, and provides a place for more colourful entries to be?

Ben

I don't see the PROD campaign as being driven by envy, I think it's a genuine desire to find an audience. Likewise, it seems to me that some of the submissions made to PR, whether they have strong EG potential or not, are not in search of EG status but just an attempt to be noticed and find an audience.

I like the EG. It's what I expected it to be. I enjoy writing for it and I recognise that I have a responsibility to play some part in the PR process. I'm pleased when Entries get into the EG and have their day on the front page but I don't consider EG entries to be better than, more important than or in any sense different from the other writings in The Guide.

I want the criteria to be applied fairly to all Entries put into PR and I do not think that the Guidelines should be interpreted differently for some types of writing.

I am aware that my interpretation of the Guidelines is my own but I am satisfied that my interpretation is similar to that of the Editors. I have reached this conclusion by comparing the Editors' decisions over the years with the decisions I would have made had I been in their shoes and I find a very high correlation. There are a couple of personal accounts in the EG and I wouldn't have let them in myself. That's the only point at which my view diverges from that of the Editors.

I'm pretty certain I know why the pieces of creative writing identified by PROD aren't in the EG but it isn't my place to say. If you want to know why a piece isn't in the EG, ask the Editors.

The Editors have to be careful to avoid giving people leverage and loopholes to exploit for their own ends. Having established that my interpretation of the rules is close to that of the Editors, I'm not about to change my interpretation and then tell the Editor's that they're wrong. I know what instructive, informative and factual means and I know the difference between facts that can be verified and those which can't and I'm not about to change my mind however 'good' a piece of writing is deemed to be.