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

I am slightly unclear, does the Ursa Minor policy of, the guide is definitive, reality is often innaccurate, apply here?

Many of us certainly think so

No, we work on the principle of "we may be inaccurate, but at least we are definitively inaccurate".

Seriously, we try and be as accurate as possible and are constantly open to correction.

Untrue (definitively!). I had the evidence of that early on.

No, it's true. If you have evidence to the contrary, present it!

No it's not true. A896231 is one example. There were a few others in Peer Review which I wouldn't easily be able to find. I eventually concluded the process was hopelessly corrupt, being one of sycophantism rather than merit. Then I found the site had a history of that and much worse.

What's wrong with that entry?

If it is wrong, you can go to the update forum and update it.

What does sycophantism mean?

It means SEF does not like the italics...

I've heard that he/she does not like the italics, but what has that got to do with anything? Bels's entry on typefaces is a very good one, as far as I can see.

OK, I looked up 'sycophantic':

Sycophantic: 'of, relating to, or characteristic of a sycophant'

Sycophant: 'a servile self-seeking flatterer'

I still don't see how this applies to h2g2.

It means I don't like actively incompetent and dishonest people. Both those characteristics are lifestyle choices they made, not accidents of birth.

What has your opinion of someone got to do with the content of this entry? I'm confused...

Oh, you are so tiring, SEF!

You've mumbled about sycophantism, and somebody being dishonest and incompetent, without saying who it is.

You've pointed to a well-written Edited Guide Entry as an example of incorrect information, without explaining (even when asked) what's wrong with it.

I've had enough of this grumbling.

Failure to recognise the incompetence and/or dishonesty is evidence of further incompetence and/or dishonesty. It's a test.

Look, will you just get off your high horse and say what you mean?

Who are you saying is incompetent, or dishonest, and why?

It looks like a perfectly reasonable entry to me, but I'm open to having things pointed out to me to suggest that it might not be.

There are some threads at the bottom of the entry that talk about errors in the entry. It looks from the conversation there as though Bels made some changes in response to some of the criticism and Anna put those changes in

It may be that the researchers that were pointing out errors felt aggrieved that not all of the criticisms were incorporated into the entry, it looks as though some did not make it in because they were asking for extra, more detailed information that the author felt went to far for the beginner's level entry he was aiming to write.

It seems a strange example to cite as evidence of dishonesty or incompetence.

It's a particularly unfair example given that there is not a lot Bels can do about it now, is there?

SEF, could you not find a corner in to grind your axe on your own?

Because someone who didn't know your past on the site might think you were making a genuine point, which would be unfortunate.

sprout

I'm back, SEF. I was intrigued by your citing of this particular entry, so I looked into it.

There was a long conversation between you and Bels on various points. Some of your points were valid, and the entry was changed, others were invalid (such as your statement that serifs are feet and that they don't lead the eye through the text), so Bels and the Editors left them unchanged.

Unfortunately, Bels died before all the changes were made to your satisfaction, and apparently you feel hard done by. As I said before, the Update Forum is available, where we can debate any changes you'd like to make.

>>Failure to recognise the incompetence and/or dishonesty is evidence of further incompetence and/or dishonesty. It's a test.

Failure to recognise incompetence can not be evidence of dishonesty by any stretch of the imagination, SEF. It could be evidence of incompetence, or even stupidity. It could be stupidity on my part that I don't understand why you feel this way.

But the fault is more likely to be in you, SEF. From the evidence of your postings in this conversation and elsewhere, you seem to let personal dislikes sway your judgement, and you consistently fail to see the good in people. Look at the world with new eyes, and you will see that we are genuinely trying to help.

"Unfortunately, Bels died before all the changes were made to your satisfaction"

That wasn't the order or nature of events, as the dates show.

"apparently you feel hard done by"

No I object to the original incompetence and subsequent dishonesty.

"Failure to recognise incompetence can not be evidence of dishonesty"

Which is itself an incompetent or dishonest reading. Someone incompetent can fail to recognise the original incompetence - hence evidence of further incompetence (on that other person's part). They might know they weren't competent and yet still pretend that they were or that it didn't matter - which would be dishonesty. They might not realise they needed to look into something further in order to judge - again incompetence. Or they might realise and yet carefully and deliberately *not* look while still pretending it didn't matter - another example of dishonesty.

"you seem to let personal dislikes sway your judgement"

No, *you* fail to recognise that the judgement comes first. I oppose active incompetence and dishonesty. That's not a personal dislike in the sense of a dislike of a person. It's a dislike of bad characteristics wherever they occur. The dislike of those behaviours would be the same by the judgement of anyone whose judgement is worth anything rather than being some unusual personal dislike.

The people who continue to misrepresent me and the situation and have a number of you fooled are also incompetent (ie if they don't know any better and it hasn't occurred to them that they ought to make the effort or remain silent) or dishonest (ie if they do know that they are lying to themselves and to others). In some instances there is evidence that it is both incompetence and dishonesty though which leads them to do it.

"The people who continue to misrepresent me and the situation and have a number of you fooled are also incompetent (ie if they don't know any better and it hasn't occurred to them that they ought to make the effort or remain silent) or dishonest (ie if they do know that they are lying to themselves and to others). In some instances there is evidence that it is both incompetence and dishonesty though which leads them to do it."

SEF, I have absolutely no idea what you are on about here, nobody has made any comments to me about your or "the situation", but from reading the threads attached to the entry there doesn't appear to be anything dishonest going on - you made some criticisms, some of which were taken on board and others which were rejected. Were there other discussions/threads that show this dishonesty? Because it isn't obvious from what you have pointed us towrds so far.