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

>What would make more people write for the Edited Guide?

Not that I was ever terribly active as a researcher here, but I more or less gave up even attempting to write for The Edited Guide several years ago on account of editorial policy. Rather than extensively and pointlessly criticise everything that I think could be done better or differently here, allow me to state only that as a writer I feel that my contributions here are treated with less respect than they would be at just about any magazine or publisher. One example... I wrote an article, it was deemed too controversial to run, a collaborative entry (which I thought stunk to high heaven) was run in its place, with my name appended to the entry and the entry linked to my personal space as though I was a contributor. I was mortified to have that piece of garbage in any way associated with me.

On several other occasions, I've submitted pieces, and the edited (final) version has been so horribly mangled that I was embarassed again to see my name printed on it. Should there not be an intermediate step where I get to approve or disapprove of what some editor is putting my name on?

Other than that, I am still waiting for several 'private' musings I'd left in my own personal space to reappear after some do-gooder 'moderator' took it on him or herself 4 years ago to police my thoughts.


>What do you think should or shouldn't be on the h2g2 front page? Do you think the front page represents h2g2 as a whole?

There should be a news ticker. Geographic entries should be accessible by means of a world map.

>What does h2g2 mean to you? Which areas form the most important parts of your h2g2 experience?

H2G2 will never be WIkipedia. It currently feels like an internet community of overly polite, moderate British soccer moms with a passing fondness for Adam's fiction. It should aim instead to be a hip, Bohemian sort of place that emphasizes free expression, humour, travel, and experience in the outside world. I don't expect these values to be remotely viable under BBC editorial policy, which is too bad. All the moderation is one thing that makes this place so unfortunately average.

>Where do you spend most of your time on the site?

Reading backscroll at the FFFF.

>How can we improve our existing forums?

No opinion.

>How can we best plug the gaps in the Guide?

PArtner up with another site like Wikipedia, let them be the Bible, and settle for being the style guide.

<>

Have you got any proof of this? I'm pretty active in PR at the moment and haven't seen anything like this happen.

<>

Did your private musings break the House Rules? If so then it's not the mods 'policing your thoughts' but you not paying attention to what you can and can't write here. Personal Space is not the same as Private Space, your PS is accessible by the public, therefore private thoughts which in some way break the rules should stay private.

<>

Which h2g2 have you been visiting?

I was wondering the same thing...

Twophlag, did you know that you now have the option to remove your name from pages you don't wish to be associated with? If you visit one of the pages there should be a link somewhere near the top that says 'Remove My Name'.

"PArtner up with another site like Wikipedia, let them be the Bible, and settle for being the style guide."

Goodness, I hope this NEVER happens. This site is great for the fact that it *is* unique, whereas Wikipedia is just another encyclopaedia. Ho hum.

Don't get me wrong, I like Wikipedia for what it is, but it is in no way better than h2g2. H2g2 has more people contributing and offers people's views and opinions, along with the facts. I also disagree with the whole thought of it being "an internet community of overly polite, moderate British soccer moms with a passing fondness for Adam's fiction". Firstly, as an American student with an almost unhealthy fondness for Adams's fiction (yes I am a nerd) I am almost offended. Secondly, I have taken part in some fascinating coversations about topics that I have know a lot about and on topics that I did not know anything about. I don't think there is any comparison between Wikipedia and h2g2 as they are completely different concepts, and greatly hope that there is never some collabaration between because it would harm the underlying concept of h2g2.
~Psycho

For me, the main difference between Wikipedia and the Guide, is that the Guide has personality and a soul.

<>

That may be a little exaggerated, however it can be very annoying when facts are changed during the editorial process without communication with the author/Researcher, who did spend their time researching the Entry's subject. (Sorry, but in my experience; the Editors are the worst culprits for doing this)

I have a Recommended Entry that has been with a Sub-editor for nearly 13 weeks, but I am stuck between a 'rock and a hard place' as to what to do about it. If I 'kick up a fuss' about it taking so long, it could end up in the hands of the Editors, and I dread what they will do to it, the alternative is to just wait, and wait...

>"Have you got any proof of this? I'm pretty active in PR at the moment and haven't seen anything like this happen."

It happens after Entries have left PR, during the editorial process.

Emmily

<>

Should've made my self a bit clearer there... what I meant is that I read the Entries in PR and then when they get to the Front Page I don't see any glaring (and certainly not embarrassing) differences.

I apologise for reviving a dead conversation, but:

<>

Are you by any chance referring to A4429064 King Leopold II and the Belgian Congo, an entry which you wrote, was submitted to the Flea Market during your (I assume) prolonged absence from the site, and which I then 'rescued' and made some changes to so that it could be recommended for the Edited Guide? If so, I am more than a little insulted to hear my writing referred to as 'that piece of garbage'. I did, as you may not know, spend a considerable amount of time working on the entry, both in Peer Review and out of it, trying to make it a little more suitable within the <./>writing-guidelines</.> of the site. There's no reason why anyone can't see your unedited entry in its pure form if they do a search, but as it stood as a candidate for the edited guide, it was my feeling that your entry was perhaps a tad unclear to the average reader (this was going on my knowledge of Leopold and the Congo from a high school history course which I took last year). I altered that aspect a bit and added a few paragraphs. Other than doing a general sub-editing job on the entire entry, I changed very little. You will notice that 95% of the info is your own. The only extra actual information added was provided by Krabatt, who (during the entry's long hiatus in Peer Review) was kind enough to assist me with some helpful info.

Of course, you would have been consulted on all of this, but you were not there at the time. When I first took up the entry, I posted a message to your Personal Space (it's F31998?thread=595343) to explain what had happened. You wrote back with your aquiescence some months later, to say that was fine and that you just wanted your name on the entry. This was done. Where in the review process did you step in and say you didn't like the entry?

In retrospect, I observe that this message may come across as slightly volatile. But I must be allowed to be at least mildly insulted at having my hard work treated so disparagingly. Shall I pull the 'I'm just a teenager, blame any of my failings on that fact' line? No, I think it's gotten a bit too cliché by now. But just let me say that if you objected, there was plenty of time for you to let me know that.

You go EMR!

One does one's best.

I wouldn't get offended too much, anyway, EMR; one of the 'FFFF backposts' he enjoys so much simply says 'dfdfdf' (A1093367). I think it's also possible that he was referring to this entry A472033, not yours, but we'll never know as he unsubscribed almost as soon as he'd posted his childish rant. Anyone who describes himself pretentiously as a 'non-orthodox pseudointellectual' is clearly not worth your time. You keep up the good work and stick to your guns; we need more ERM's and less Tooparp Oddnames around here. You contribute more in a day than he ever has

Hear hear!