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

It's my hope that h2g2 will survive this second millennium, but her aims might change to remain usefull (besides the fiction world).

And at this moment the free Wikipadia is the largest encyclopedia on earth ánd free for all uf us.

Does Wikipedia make our non fiction Entries unnecessary?

I want to face this question, because what I do must be useful, even if it's hurts, altough I myself have not written an Entry so far,
but its half the world of h2g2 I join with great pleasure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia

: I've used both wikipedia & h2g2 to look up things and mosta the time, chances are that the h2g2 ones...-are wittier.

Would that difference be enough for someone from outside?
Although it's right what you say.

Suddenly I realize that the basic BBC online sometimes shows direct links to Entries at h2g2.
Thát may be the decisive push for an outsider to read.

And our comm. at h2g2 can brainstorm on how these links can be increased at BBC home.

That is an interesting point...

Yes, I believe I am making a real point here.
And if that is so, we don't only need to strengthen the alliance with BBC-Homepage etc, but also exploring what we at H2G2 can do more and/or different then the cold texts at wikipedia.

The last thing has already shortly mentioned in an earlier posting
but it will need more feedback.

And íf Wikipedia becomes thát good, we'll have to face the facts and
make new choices at h2g2.
Because in my point of view it's more than writing for and sharing with members, but álso for those who come here by surfing.

Maybe we might make entries that are very delicate.

I suddenly realize now, that at h2g2 you can react about what is written and at Wikipedia you can only read and/or work at their "entries". But reactions and discussions are impossible.

*pondering* : Hmm...This is true.

I thought about that, too, because I found out about this site through Wikipedia's page about Encyclopedia. I believe both should be strongly supported, and here's why.
Wikipedia focuses on exhaustive explanation of key terms, fields of study, and points of interest, in a Neutral Point Of View and mostly impassionate, impersonal voice, with nothing remaining that can't be proven to be a _majority_ opinion(look it up) by reference to other reliable works. That's what it takes to be a Featured Article(their version of Edited Posts), anyway, and that's what the spirit of the site is based around. What I've seen of the Guide, it is much more personal, much more open to humor and idiosyncracy in its writing, including the Edited Posts, somewhat more open to opinion, and it attempts to give advice, which Wikipedia cannot and will never do. Bottom line, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, h2g2 is a guide.
On a slightly different note, keep in mind that, even if they do overlap some, there is much benefit in having many seperate sources of reference. First, no matter how hard a reference tries to cover all points of view fairly, there will be imperfections, both in the system and in its implementation, and it pays to have many people trying seperately. Second, the systems themselves can then be different(which they are), which leads each reference to making different mistakes as well, which allows the readers to get a rounder view of the situation. For instance, Wikipedia is absolutely open-source, even in its instructional pages, meaning that at any time the page you're reading could just have been vandalized. h2g2's Edited section is harder to change, but that means it's also harder to fix or update.
BTW, Wikipedia has a discussion page attached to each article, and a number of forums of various kinds. As I understand it, there really is a sense of community there, though it may not be of the same kind as here. I'm not sure yet.

All in all, I'd have to say it's h2g2's capacity for advice that is most important. Wikipedia would never be able to tell me how to store eggs for months without them spoiling. Their organizational system wouldn't allow it, even if they decided they wanted to.

The Guide... is funnier.
It has less of a dull-machine feel to it.
Don't get me wrong... I like the wiki entries on Manga...
hammerspace, 'superhero' etc. and some of the ones on folkloric creatures: particularly Oni, Tengu... homunculus.

But, If anyone could change it?

...

Interesting side-point.

Yes, I too feel that the guide is, (don't know quite how else to say it),- friendlier and more quirky.

Both are 'friendlier' than my own mother... though she would hate it were that I were to say that. Can't really blame her... first off, she'd get all offended and angry in an authoritarian sort of way... that anyone could possibly be more interested in paying attention to "a machine" or "an object" than listening to what it is, that she has to say...(usually involving various 'request' demands at some point... regardless; it is a constant/given)... I'd like to try and see Wikipedia try and actually satirize something (Or make a spoof out of somebody else's mother)... without having to comment on how someone else already did it first. h2g2... is more of a 'living encyclopedia'. organoid metal...<- how appropriate to it's science-fiction roots then.

I know I know... the funny little nightmarish thing about the internet... (one of them), is that what if the 'somebody' on the other end-of the opposite "line"... turn out to be actually be someone's mother, who-is-exactly like that. In RL...

Quote from posting 7;
"BTW, Wikipedia has a discussion page attached to each article, and a number of forums of various kinds. As I understand it, there really is a sense of community there, though it may not be of the same kind as here. I'm not sure yet".

I did not know that.That means that the two are even closer than I thought in posting one.

I think it would be wise to (keep)analyse the two in the h2g2 organisation and make choices to renew h2g2 before it is getting more unpopular and before the BBC will be privatized.

This is an issue that has been brought up very often.

If you want to see the difference between the two, look at a country entry. Their Tanzania entry tells you how many people live there, and what the political system is. Our Tanzania EG entry (I wrote that one so I give it as an example - it's true for most) tells you how to make the most of your trip, fun things to bring back and interesting places to go.

As Gnomon (I think) has said - Wikipedia describes, the EG explains. It's the difference between a guide and an encyclopedia.

sprout

That was me. Another example, easy to get to today, is blackberries. The new Guide entry explains what blackberries are and how to gather them properly, then there's another that explains what to do with them from there. The Wikipedia entry on blackberries, which is about the same length and level of completion, to my eye, describes exactly what they are, what they look like, how they grow, and some history. One helps you have fun, the other helps you win a game of Jeopardy.

Another thing I noticed: Wikipedia gives history, h2g2 doesn't, much. They often explain how things were way back then, this focuses on how to deal with the way things are now.

BTW, could you tell me how to get to other conversations on this topic?

What's privatization? Is this something the BBC is likely to do soon?

The BBC is owned by the state. Selling it into private ownership (on the stock market) would be privatisation. It is not likely.

On your previous question, when the search facility is working, you could search conversations for Wikipedia.

It's not working right now.

sprout

Thanks for all the postings with details.

In posting 15 someone asks about "privatisation" and the BBC, because I had mentioned that in one of my postings.

"Another someone" replies that that danger is not coming soon.

Well, it will be sooner than we want.

In the year that the Queen mother died (2004??) English parliament had started the debate about selling the BBC.
However, while the debate had started, they were só impressed by the work of the BBC at her funeral day, that they decided to "postpone it for a while".

So it's rather close by. I think before 2010.

These are real facts.

How is that dangerous? I suppose the most obvious risk would be the new company abusing their control, but since this only exists as a product of volunteer effort, wouldn't it be relatively easy to form a loose union against that?

The Parliament may have 'debated' privatisation of the BBC - in a select committee would seem the most likely. However, they certainly didn't debate a government proposal to privatise, so for the moment...

Betting in virtual space is always a bit futile, but I think there is little chance of the BBC being privatised by 2010. Hootoo, on the other hand, could be scrapped, just as get writing was. But the similarities or not with Wikipedia will not make the slightest bit of difference.

sprout

If the BBC's Charter is renewed in 2006 (which it is expected to be) then will continue to exist in more-or-less our current form until 2016.

Parts of the BBC that do technical things, the bits that were formerly called BBC Broadcast and BBC Technology, have been privatised. BBC Broadcast is now run by its former management and is called Red Bee Media, and BBC Technology were taken over by the German company Siemens. Likewise, BBC Facilities (buildings maintenance and suchlike) are now run (badly, in my opinion) by a company called LS Trilium.

But don't ask me, I merely work here.