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

How much does the Edited Guide fit in with Douglas' vision for h2g2?

A550955 was written before there was either an EG or PR. It seems to envisage a Guide very much like his original idea for the HHGTTG, not an encyclopaedia. There may well be encyclopaedic entries within his vision of h2g2, but is it likely that information such as "And when you write in something as simple as 'The coffee here is lousy!' the Guide will know exactly what to do with that information and where to put it. And if you see, a few seconds later, a note which says 'Yes, but the cheesecake is good' it might be worth looking round the other tables to see who you've just made contact with" would ever make it into the EG?

What are your views on how the EG compares to A550955?

I'm beginning to wonder if having the EG as pinnacle of h2g2 entry-writing (if indeed that's what it is) is really what he would have wanted. Perhaps The Post, AGG/GAG/CAC, and the UG are more in line with Douglas' vision, and those of us involved in the EG are just sitting in an ivory tower

Personally, I think he would have loved hootoo as it is now, but as a *whole*, rather than just thinking of it as being the EG alone. He's talking there about his vision for h2g2 in its entirety, and not just for a subset of it.

I agree. So one of the questions that could be inferred from my initial post is 'Do we think of the EG as being more important than it really is?' The Italics have said that the Front Page of the website is effectively the front page of the EG, and EG entries almost the only consistent thing about the Front Page - right at the top, in the most prominent position. Edited entries usually come up first in search results too. It's pretty important.

Let me rephrase that:
'Do we think of the EG as being more important than it really ought to be?'

I do think the EG is important, but I also think it's vital not to slip into thinking that the EG is *all* that's valuable about hootoo.

One thing that I had expected back when I first joined here was that there would be all sorts of little entries (non-EG) on things like "my favorite pancake house in pokeyville", and then at some point all those little entries about a common topic (maybe places to eat in pokeyville) would be pulled together and edited into a more comprehensive entry for the EG.

I think that might become more common if we could encourage people to write more of those little, non-EG entries about places to go, or places to eat, etc. It seems like too many have developed the feeling that writing an entry isn't worth it at all unless you can submit it somewhere right away.

The bit about cheesecake, etc. certainly suggests far more room for opinions than the EG allows.


Never having met DNA, I don't imagine I can know what he would want or envisage. So I don't even know whether he'd be keen on our worrying about adherence to his vision, which by his own admission wasn't static. At any rate, I don't write for him; I can't, for obvious reasons. Neither do I necessarily write with the EG's intended audience in mind, having established that my love of obscure detail exceeds its. Which isn't to say that I consider one type of Entry more important than another, merely that different approaches to writing suit different people at different times.

Interesting question, O.

I'll let some other people answer before I start in.

Yeah, well done for an important ask.

I'm waiting too.

Pin (subscribes)

Okay, four hours, I gave others a chance

I have a feeling Douglas would have liked h2g2, but I don't think his vision of the guide squares with ours. For instance, the point is often made that he probably wouldn't have ever written history entries, or other such things characteristic of an encyclopedia, but not a guide book.

Now, some of the very, very first entries had history sections (though I can't find any of the very, very earliest (I'm talking the first two or three months) that were, in themselves, history entries). Those are all fine and good... I have no problem with history entries in theory, when they're good, but I think as a community we should focus on entries you would find in a guide. Number Six's wonderful Geographic Society has no doubt been helping this along.



The very first footnote on h2g2, in A27, says this - "In that style is just as important as content in the Guide. We don't care what you say, as long as you say it with elan." That clearly states that it was the original purpose of this site to have a guide with liveliness and flair. That's why we should make sure every entry is distinctive.

When they say the Guide, I reckon they're talking about the whole damn thing, but we can't keep the Unedited Guide from being littered with crap. We can keep the EG in line with the original ideas of the site - a clean guide to life, the universe and everything. That's why the Edited Guide, in theory, has to be more important than the others. We can regulate that crap that doesn't line up with our vision doesn't get in it. We haven't been doing a great job of that.



I don't think that the Post, CAC and UG have much to do with DNA's vision of h2g2. But I do think they help keep it sticky, which is necessary to keeping people onsite to help contribute.

h2g2 wouldn't be around but for the EG simply because the BBC would get rid of it. Therefore, we have to keep the Edited Guide fresh, original, and most of all, alive. It's a good relationship we have between the community/creative sector and the Guide sector. You can't have one without the other.

*enters thread with a strong sense of foreboding*

"Oh, no, not again!" to quote someone.

We have been through much of this before. In this post, I'd like to give my take on the questions Oojakapiv raises in post 1, challenge a couple of things from jodan's post (although I'm broadly in agreement with him) and the I'll finish by trying to head something off at the pass.



Oojakapiv asks "How much does the Edited Guide fit in with Douglas' vision for h2g2?"

It's a good question but it does assume we can all agree on what DNA's vision was. Unfortunately, previous discussion on this topic have shown that researchers have many trenchantly held but divergent views on this.

I think there are four sources of evidence:

1. People who met DNA and discussed this project with them. Mark Moxon would be a good example.

2. The collected writings of DNA on the subject of h2g2

3. The Hitchhiker's Guide radio scripts/ books/ film scripts

4. Communications from beyond the grave.

Researchers will sometimes say they 'know' DNA wouldn't be happy with the current EG. I'm left wondering how they 'know.'

For example, Jodan wrote: "I have a feeling Douglas would have liked h2g2..." Know him well, did you Jodan?

Jodan continues: "...but I don't think his vision of the guide squares with ours. For instance, the point is often made that he probably wouldn't have ever written history entries..."

Who is it that 'often' makes these points? How do they square their views with the existence of historical entries in version of the Guide presented within the Hitchhiker's story - the history of the Golgafrinchams and that of the great Circling Poets of Arium, for instance. Or the history/myth of Magrathea - "Far back in the mists of ancient time, in the great and glorious days of the former Galactic Empire, life was wild, rich and largely tax free."

My point here is that researchers often claim to know what DNA wanted but we must be vigilant. Very few people can claim to have such knowledge.



Oojakapiv continues: "A550955 was written before there was either an EG or PR. It seems to envisage a Guide very much like his original idea for the HHGTTG, not an encyclopaedia."

By 'his original idea for the HHGTTG' I assume you mean the idea as exemplified in the Hitchhiker books/radio series/film.

Perhaps you could explain how you come to that conclusion. It's not one I share. If you extract the words of "The Book" to make an excerpt of "The Guide" you end up with a series of quite lengthy articles. It isn't a series of one-liners about coffee shops.

The encyclopedia debate has taken place elsewhere. Yes, the Earth edition is described to newcomers as an encyclopedia. That's because it's the nearest term that the Italics think will make sense - especially to those many visitors who, amazingly, have not read the books.

It's probably best not to rehash the semantic argument about encyclopedias again but I present these quotes from HHGTTG to inform debate.


[The Book is a] repository of all knowledge and wisdom...

It's a sort of electronic book. It tells you everything you need to know about anything. That's its job.

After a while the style settles down a bit and it begins to tell you things you really need to know,

The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a very unevenly edited book and contains many passages that simply seemed to its editors like a good idea at the time.



There may well be encyclopaedic entries within his vision of h2g2, but is it likely that information such as [coffee and cheescake example] would ever make it into the EG? What are your views on how the EG compares to A550955?

I think the collaborative entries which have spontaneously arisen when people realise they are, figurative speaking, in the same coffee shop are in the spirit of the coffee and cheesecake example on A550955.

On the other hand, the example can be interpreted in many ways. For instance, the technology does exist for me to sit in Starbucks and text in my opinion on the coffee. Do we really want that in the Guide? Does Pinniped, who is sitting at a corner table quietly enjoying his cheesecake really want the Guide to text me back to alert me to his proximity? I suspect not.

However, I do think we could put more systems in place to bring together the like-minded - in h2g2-space rather than by text - and generate more collaborative work.

I'd also argue that the Update system is a step towards the coffee and cheesecake vision.



"I'm beginning to wonder if having the EG as pinnacle of h2g2 entry-writing (if indeed that's what it is) is really what he would have wanted. "

Two problems here. Firstly, what would DNA have wanted? Are those who claim to have superior insight into the workings of the great man's mind being disrespectful? Secondly, 'pinnacle' is a value word. More anon.



Perhaps The Post, AGG/GAG/CAC, and the UG are more in line with Douglas' vision, and those of us involved in the EG are just sitting in an ivory tower

This is where the value issue comes in. My view is this. We have a set of criteria for deciding which articles go into the EG. There are many criteria but, most importantly, there is no criterion that says the entry has to be 'good' writing.

What do I mean by good writing? Actually, I wouldn't dream of being the arbiter of 'good.'. I know that DNA's writing is good/great/astounding and I know many agree with me but I also know that some critics think DNA's writing is pants.

DNA expressed a wish that we'd write with élan but what does that mean? Is it an absolute term or a relative one?

The EG is a subset of material that matches certain criteria and that's all it is. Anyone with a superiority complex need not apply. If we say the EG is an ivory tower or a pinnacle of achievement then we're expressing a value judgement. We're saying that EG work is good, and therefore by extension that work that isn't accepted into the EG is 'bad.' This is unhelpful and hurtful. People fight back by saying hurtful things about EG entries. "95% of the EG is crap" would be an example.

The damage done by this interpretation of the EG as an elite collection leads to the following argument, which I'll present now to save other the trouble in the hope of heading it off at the pass (as advertised).

DNA's fiction writing is brilliant [hard to argue against]
My fiction writing is brilliant [modesty is not a condition of h2g2 membership]
My writing is better than that in the EG [value judgement]
And yet my writing isn't allowed into the EG
DNA's work wouldn't get into his own guide! [shock horror]
Therefore by rejecting me you're rejecting and dishonouring DNA

QED

Politicians use similar arguments to align themselves with premature babies or fluffy animals or Jesus Christ. It's a trick, people. Don't fall into it!



Would it not be easier if we stopped wondering if this is better than that and just accepted that the bulk of the staffing resource is going into the (real) Earth version of the (fictional) publication to which Ford Prefect contributed and that this isn't a value judgement, just a practical one? Ford did not submit for editing poems or streams of consiousness or historical fiction - or even radio plays come to that - and perhaps neither should we.

I second Amy the Ant.

I third the previous two postings

Especially the point about what "Douglas would have liked" etc.

Hey Amy

The 'heading off at the pass' bit reads like a (rather neat) paraphrasing of the line I tried with that Velvet Gauntlet thing, a couple of years ago.

I hope I'm not being presumptious in assuming that's what you're thinking of. If it is, though, I want to say that I dropped that approach long ago. It was silly and it got peoples' backs up.

This isn't an issue of elitism and what individuals think about their own ability. It's about inclusivity, and the distinction between celebrating writing (IMO our mission) and trying to compile an encyclopaedia (IMO futile).

Nobody knows any longer what Douglas Adams would have wanted. Even those who knew him closely only knew him as he was then. He was hardly the kind of man to fix his opinions for ever, and so a static ethos for this site would be a strange monument.

You gave a long and thoughtful post there, which is cool. Let's not make this a battleground of high principle, though, because ultimately h2g2 is a pleasurable shared experience in which everybody has a stake.

For now, then, I just want to take issue with your last point. I don't see how italic resources are affected one way or another by the allowable scope of Edited Guide writing. That shouldn't in any way direct our thinking on this question.

We do rely on the italics (and many others in the infrastructure) to keep the wheels turning, of course. The BBC's continued patronage of h2g2 is moreover not something we can take for granted. It seems to me that keeping that support will ultimately depend on fostering participation in the central project - ie the Edited Guide. Within the traditional scope of the EG and Peer Review, there's now a concerned debate about how to grow participation without dumbing down.

I still personally believe that the way forward is to broaden the scope. All those things that Ford didn't write about are the things we should admit. There's really no sensible reason for disallowing writing in any style for the EG, provided it's (a) original, (b) inoffensive and (c) of good quality. Only the last is a value-judgement (of which you're rightly wary), but it's a necessary value-judgement, and I think we're all agreed that it must be a collective peer-based value-judgement. That's what keeps us safe from elitism, provided that we don't get too cliquish.

So this has got nothing to do with self-glorification, for any of us. We're still here, aren't we? That alone proves that this is about more than pride.

Pin

I'm not sure, I kind of like the idea of that "coffee here is lousy- cheesecake is good" scenario. I understand not everyone does. But isn't the setup for it already in place? Conversations on a Guide Entry?

We can regulate that crap that doesn't line up with our vision

One mans crap is someones elses fertilizer
however i do agree with some of the points raised above, but until both the babel fish for instent translation from one lanquage into another
many good writers are precluded from the guide as concepts ect cannot be explained fully in second language.or Distinctive style or flair. that is lost in the translation frog to a english man will mean pet to a frenchman lunch to a bushman water,ect

still lets see where this thread and the pda/version goes goes

Given that I am a historian, the suggestion made that history articles have no place in the guide rather gets me in a tizzy. The very idea that history isn't a valid thing to know...

Oy vey!

"For example, Jodan wrote: "I have a feeling Douglas would have liked h2g2..." Know him well, did you Jodan?"



No, only wish I did. But I do believe in my gut Douglas would've gotten a kick out of some of the stuff we've been up to - but only a small part of it. It's just a personal feeling... take it for what you will.

"DNA expressed a wish that we'd write with élan but what does that mean?"

That means we should write with elan. But for the moment, I'll (try to) focus on h2g2's future, and not DNA's vision...

We should encourage people to be interesting in their writing, because if they aren't, then there is *no* point in h2g2's continuing existance.

h2g2 without interesting writing has no purpose. It's just a wikipedia wannabe with a community. Douglas would not have liked h2g2 to turn into a wikipedia-like site. Again, that is my personal opinion, but most of his posts on this site dealing with its future seem to indicate this.

A short while ago, there was a discussion about whether wikipedia was closer to DNA's vision than h2g2. Jimi X made a good point that the wikipedia entry on Middletown, Pennsylvania gave just statistics, but h2g2's told you where to find the best jukebox. From his vision entry, I think h2g2's version would have pleased Douglas more.

Right now we're stuck in between two extremes. We're not strictly an encylopedia, like wikipedia, barely bothering to acknowledge the existance of cheesecake except to explain it's composition... From wikipedia-

"A cheesecake is a dessert which is either made of, or has a soft topping of, ricotta cheese or more usually cream cheese, sugar and sometimes other ingredients such as eggs, cream and fruit, on a cookie crumb crust."



The other extreme is to have a celebration of writing, where every entry is something one would want to read. Imagine looking at the front page and knowing that if you clicked on one of those entries, you'd be absolutely certain that you would be entertained for the next five or ten minutes.
Imagine elan just bursting out of the cheesecake

If we're trying to educate, we will fail at being the best.
If we're trying to spread a little joy, I can't think of a community better equipped for the task.

Now, we're not either right now. Most entries contain at least a some humor... maybe a good pun or two. Most entries are somewhat educational. It seems like the attitude is that we're trying to have a nice, tidy encyclopdia built up as soon as we can, even though we can't and we shouldn't.

From where I'm standing, I don't see why any individual would come to h2g2 for an encyclopedia. It just doesn't make sense. Google and wikipedia are great repositories of knowledge that we have no business challenging unless we intend to be mediocre. What's the point of building an encyclopedia when we could be doing so much more?

Hi MR.
I created the Royal h2g2 Historians Society A1310149 (and then neglected it) of which you are member number nine. I think a lot of history does have a place in the guide, but that we should be focusing on other things first. That's all.

Sorry if that came out wrong.

Okay. I was going to get a paper bag for the hyperventilating for a moment there!

Really, I think the only person qualified to say what DNA would have wanted to see here was, well, DNA. And now that he's no longer with us, the fact remains that a community of people will take things where they want them to go. I've personally encountered people who couldn't write with élan if their lives depended on it, and others who have élan coming out their ears, but end up writing entries that make little sense to those who aren't "in the loop."

I guess what I'm saying is that there are thousands of us here, and why is it that there has to be one specific vision for the EG? I mean that in the sense that I might look for something that others think is completely irrelevant. An entry on the history of the Papacy might be deadly dull to others, but very useful to the guy who got made cardinal next week and has NO idea what he's doing in conclave this week (not that this happened, but you get the idea!).

I just think that the guide is what *everyone* makes it, and that is more in line with the spirit of the place.

uh...change that "next week" to "last week" and it will make a whole lot more sense...