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

Hello All,

Just thought I'd pop my head round the door and see how things were going here. Hopefully nobody's gotten to the stage where they're so angry that things aren't beyond saving and online relationships aren't irreperably damaged - I'd really hate it if that were the case.

Now I *think* what might possibly be the problem here is that Mizzpinky mightn't quite have grasped the entire purpose and thinking behind what Peer Review is here to do - and similarly, I think some of the comments here have been (how shall I put it) rather on the brusque side. Now I know that everyone's style of posting is different, and that some people naturally come across as less *fluffy* than others, so that might go some way to explaining why there's been an unintentional falling-out.

I'd hate to see this entry disappear entirely, considering the amount of work that's already gone into it from both Mizzpinky and the wonderful Scouts who've made very necessary comments and corrections. Ideally, I'd love it if everybody took a few hours to calm down and came back to the discussion tomorrow, if that's okay?

Perhaps in the meantime Misspinky could re-read the top few paragraphs of the Peer Review page: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/PeerReview in order to get a full grasp of the type of entry we're looking for; and perhaps all of our Scouts in this thread might just take a few minutes to go back and re-read the postings they've already made and look at them again to see if they might possibly be read as overly rude or aggressive.

All of the italics here on h2g2 like to think that this site is a supportive and friendly place to be, and although Peer Review (and all of the other Review Forums) are, by thier very nature, places where the work you've done is criticised and commented upon by other people, we really should be doing everything we can to ensure that any comments we make about other peoples' work are done with tact, diplomacy and discretion.

I hope I've not offended anyone or sounded patronising - it certainly hasn't been my intention to do that. It's just that we're in the middle of our summer slowdown right now, and we need every possible entry for the Edited Guide that we can. I'd hate to lose an enthusiastic new writer like Misspinky because her expectations of Peer Review haven't been managed properly - similarly, I'd hate to see the wonderful Scout volunteers to get fed up and quit spending their free time offering advice and guidance only for the author of the original article to withdraw it from Peer Review at the first sign of some non-positive feedback.

Fingers crossed we can all come back to this tomorrow eh? Right - I'd better toddle off home. Want to be back home in time for Bad Girls... you always knew I was a true connoisseur of quality broadcasting, didn't you?

Paully

yes I have read everything you have posted, witch is why a find you tactless and very unscout like.

Hello Oojamakiv (can I call you gosho?)

I have a vested interest in this researcher.. she had a problem with short term memory due to contracting menningitis some years back.

She is a Guide Guider in RL.. and is passionate about the movement. She gets confused if others keep referring her back to the same point.. this is where the frustration comes in, mainly with herself.. and then with others. I am not making excuses for her.

She replied to Mikey.. and was suddenly surrounded by others criticising her posting. The EG is the item under scrutiny...

She and Mickey have known each other a while online now.. and I am certain things would have been sorted out anyway.

She is not asking for an easy ride.. just that others actually read what she has put, it could be that something needs rewording to make it work..but if she doesn't decide to follow a persons advice or request, surely that is her perogative?

Sorry, I don't mean to confrontational.. it isn't my style.. This is just how I have been reading things here. You have to remember that you and most of the others are used to the way you chat to each other.. Others are not so lucky..


lil xx

Ooops.. looks like we all sim-posted!!

Hello Paully *waves*

You can call me bølløckbrain if you like, lil

I've taken on board what you've said, and if MizzPinky has memory difficulties then I'm sorry if I was too harsh on her in not knowing that. It's impossible to know everything about a person when you're dealing with them online, just as very few of you know anything about me and whatever reasons there may be behind my MO.

Oh darling I would never call you that!

I would never have put what I did only I needed to take the wind out of some of the sails.. and let you know what was happening.

I know a lot of researchers have their disabilities.. I have myself.. we don't normally broadcast them.. but in this case I felt it needed to be explained.

We are all just mere mortals


lil xx

In answer to paully's post



I do understand what peer review is for, I just didn’t agree with Mikey’s comment that BP is not the founder of Girl Guiding UK and therefore the entry should in fact be about scouting, which is why I withdrew it, There was no strop. I just said “right I’m pulling it don’t know enough about scouting anyway.



All comments were fine until one particular scout put their in and decided to drop to the level of “oh you had a strop again !“ This opinion of me has now overflowed into the update forum as now Kat feels the need to back mikey up on every thing she says. Again I didn’t have a problem with Mikey I just didn’t agree with her.



yes it would be a shame because apart from one person in particular all the comments have been constructive.



I‘m afraid because I know so much about this subject I have a tendency to assume knowledge, so have no idea what is missing until someone says “oh whys that then“ or “why did that happen“ or “why did they go there“., if we could all write polished entries right away surely then there would be no need for peer review at all.





Maybe this needs to be reaffirmed to the Scouts

I don't agree with any of that, but I shan't discuss it any further.

so why even post?

Right, can we leave the arguing behind us now and move on to actually getting this wonderful bit of work into the Edited Guide? We'd hate to lose this for whatever reason, so can we all try to move on from yesterday and get back to polishing and refining this entry so it's ready to be accepted?

Many thanks to you all.

Paully [on behalf of Natalie and Jimster, too]

*sigh*

I re-entered it on , I think it was tuesday

So, do any of our wonderful Scouts here have any further suggestions to make about this entry, or does everyone think it's now ready to pick?

Paully

Paully I would agree that this entry has made very significant progress in the last couple of days, for which Mizzpinky should be applauded.

I do still have some concerns that it is understating Baden-Powell's wife and sister's roles in the formation of the Guides. However my concerns are *significantly* less than they were when I first encountered this entry, as the entry as it now stands is much better focused. To this end, I am happy to defer to you, the Editors, and your decision as to its suitability for the EG.

There is of course still one major block to getting this picked. And that is that it has only been in PR for 2 days. This thread here is no longer the PR thread; this one is --> F48874?thread=703655

GD if you tell me your concerns I will try and explain them to you

Paully it can't go through yet anyway, the links to the guide and Brownie sections are out of date, I currently have the Brownie entry in the update forum. And have yet to sort the Guide one out.

On a closer further reading of this entry, coupled with reading Cyzaki's entry on Olave. My concerns such as they were become negligible. If the Eds seem happy with this entry, then so am I.

Good work Mizzpinky

Well indeed, it can't be picked until it's been in PR for at least a week. So let's see if any new readers of the article have any comments or suggestions!

P