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

I have just been reading the 'Terry Pratchett' thread in Peer Review http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F48874?thread=106085&skip=0&show=20 and there is a lot of discussion about the coverage of his bibliography, and how quickly it will go out of date. Obviously this out-dating of Edited entries is a problem in many areas. My suggestion is a new volunteer scheme (eg Revision Editing Assistants) that will involve the volunteers going through Edited entries (presumably on the basis that the staff ask them to cover A1234 to A1239, or so forth, to avoid duplicate re-editing), and add in any salient comments from the threads, new books/albums/films etc produced since the original article was edited, and making any other appropriate adjustments. I realise this creates an additional workload, which is why I am proposing it as a volunteer scheme, but presumably TPTB realised early on that such amendments would be necessary one day. If the additions/amendments were clearly marked when returned to h2g2's editors, then it would only be necessary for yourselves to check the amended parts (a much smaller task than re-checking the entire entry), before re-posting it. Of course, that said, there are some early Edited entries that would benefit from serious re-working (eg 'Boredom')! Alternatively, employing long-standing (and trusted!) Sub-eds to the task may relieve TPTB of any further editing!;-) ~A~

There may be a need to improve service in this area. But updating Edited Entries is something that we should already be doing, as Sub-editors, as a matter of routine. Normally, if someone has something relevant to add to an Entry they contact the person who Subbed it. This is something that should be encouraged, because it places the onus on the general community to assess whether or not anything needs to be added to an Entry.

The Scouts have the primary responsibility for hunting down new material, and referring it to Peer Review. They could also help to keep Edited Entries current by contacting the appropriate Sub-editor whenever they come across new articles that would improve existing Entries. The issue of shelf life should also be a criterion of acceptance: If the topic is out of date or old hat in a month, should it be considered suitable for inclusion as an Edited Entry in the first place? Is there any point in Editing Entries about what was on the telly last night, even if it is well written? Wouldn't it make more sense to encourage the authors of articles, whose lasting value is suspect, to retain editorial control of their work by not submitting it to Peer Review, in order to update it themselves?

I see a new volunteer group as a duplication of service, which would add another level of overlap to the production process. It would muddy the waters far less to simply increase the number of Scouts and Sub-editors, if the general consensus is that we are presently incapable of keeping up with demand.

Alternatively, a new volunteer group could be established with a mandate to monitor forum postings, in order to assist members of the general community in developing their ideas to the point where they justify crediting the writer with co-authorship, and advising them on how to go about contacting the appropriate Sub-editor.

Lastly, until there is a fair and representative way to credit minor contributors to existing Entries, it would be a mistake to create a new volunteer group whose sole function is to add new material, particularly if that material is gleaned from forum postings.

As many entries have already spent a considerable time sitting in Peer Review, I hardly think my comments refer to 'what was on telly last night'. Unless we are purely compiling an historical reference, entries WILL go out of date, and do need up-dating. Even by increasing the number of Sub-eds, all entries will not be covered unless done systematically, and lumping such extra duties on Sub-editors does not seem to me to be entirely fair to those who are doing their best to assist the Guide in their spare time.

I have noted the comments you made elsewhere about crediting researchers, and I agree that the major researcher/writer should be properly credited. To find yourself listed as one of a dozen researchers when you know the idea, initial hard work and compiling process was mostly yours, must be rather discouraging. I think that once this has been resolved (number 219 was it?!), that my suggestion would work quite easily. Only a proper organised process will ensure the Guide remains up-to-date, and as one of the purported aims was to allow people to (for instance) look up details of the nearest sushi restaurant whilst strolling down the street, then you cannot discount entries that MAY not be entirely accurate for many months or years continuosly.

I'd be very interested in hearing what TPTB have to say on the subject, or how other researchers feel the issue can best be tackled.

~A~

As noted, this is not a new duty for the Subs; it's something we should already be doing. I don't think we need to create another group of volunteers to do something that falls within our mandate as Sub-editors. The problem of who wrote what is already a messy one. And, until it is resolved, adding a group of volunteers, whose function it is to troll for material to add to Entries, is bound to make things even messier.

Let the general population of Researchers decide what needs updating. If an Entry is out of date or needs to be improved in some other way, there are 70,000 odd Researchers out there who are perfectly capable of letting us know about it. We don't need to read through every Entry; all we need to do is respond promptly when we are asked to update something. If something comes to your attention... deal with it, or notify the person who Subbed it. Easy.

Having said that, there is nothing wrong with any one of us concentrating extra effort on keeping Entries current. If that's what you want to do, go for it.

JTG

I'll look forward to hearing what other researchers and TPTB have to say on the subject, as I have done my part and brought this topic, already much discussed elsewhere, to their attention. I'm afraid I cannot agree with all your comments John, as the Guide is an overwhelmingly large place and there is only a handful of researchers who tackle this issue, or report changes. I do not believe the Guide should only try to remain accurate when someone raises their voice.

As I said, I'm sure TPTB already had a rough plan in mind early on, and I, and other researchers, would be interested to know their opinions.

~A~

I'm not sure if waiting for the community to point something out about an article would be very productive. Or, at least, it won't be until they are encouraged to do so. At the moment, people may well add extra useful information in conversations under an entry, but not do anything extra to alert anyone. Just today somebody came to my page saying they'd got some extra info for an entry I'd edited, but they weren't sure what to do with it, could I include it?

Perhaps an extra button at the side of the page, to alert the editors that it needs updating (and has material to do so) would work. But I think it'd still be better to have a dedicated workforce as well. I'd be happy to do it as part of my subediting but the main problem is there's so system to it at the moment. We need to get organised.

An extra button is, where possible, to be avoided. Really, it should suffice to subscribe to all entries one has edited, so that any conversations on this subject are immediately brought to our attention in our personal conversation lists. Surely everyone looks regularly at all the latest additions to conversations on their page as a matter of course. The problem is, how quickly can we get round to updating the info.

It is, in my opinion, quite possible to do updating efficiently with the resources we have to hand, without waiting for Jim to fix it for us. Admittedly, I'm only a relative beginner and don't have that many entries in my list yet, but with has an orderly system on one's hard disc, there should be no danger of losing track of things. Maybe we could compare working systems?

Trillian's Child (subed)

Sorry - delete the "has" and it makes sense!

When I proposed to Anna that I assume a full-time updating role, rather than simply doing it as part of my regular duties as a Subed, we discussed this very topic.

I was told at the time that the problem was that there weren't enough itallics to handle the increased workload of processing new entries *and* updates.

A couple people updating here and there wasn't a problem, but getting 25-plus every week might be overwhelming and building the guide was the first priority.

But if another Subeditor wants to help out with updating full-time, I wouldn't object!

The biggest problem with updating right now is that the forums are missing (pending moderation) on the very content (older stuff) that needs updating most.

Anyway, my $.02

- X

I would be very happy to help out with updating the guide, but I wouldn't want this to replace Subbing new entries at present, which I enjoy. I appreciate the workload problem for TPTB, which is why I wondered whether they might 'trust' some Subs who have been doing so for a long time to be reliable, or maybe to double-check the work of other voluntary updaters for them?

Actually a thought has just occurred... if not a new volunteer scheme itself, perhaps clearly marking those Subs involved with updating on the Subs page, so that researchers can easily identify and approach them, might be another option.

I agree with Peregrin's comments. There really does need to be some system, as researchers do tend to add salient comments in the threads, and even when they do approach a Sub, no-one is quite sure what to do about it!

Hopefully we'll get some feedback from TPTB tomorrow.

~A~

The problem with identifying certain Subs as the ones to approach to update Entries is that it may create an added element of confusion. The first recourse of a Researcher who wants to add something to an existing Entry ought to be the person who Subbed it in the first place.

Yes - that would save confusion as well as the original subeditor's name could be left alone on the page. But it's not a long term solution as subeditors come and go, and may not be around to update 'their' subbed entries.

I would be happy to update my entries but it means going through them all checking each one. I wouldn't mind doing this but it'd take time out of my subbing, so I'd like to know what's currently more important.

That would be a matter for one's own integrity. Some information is more important than others. For example, if you had written about Princess Stephanie of Monaco, and she has another baby, you'd better get that in fast, as everyone will rush off to read it. Or if an 11th planet is discovered.

Other things change more slowly and everyone knows they are evolving, so, perhaps it would suffice to note the date when the entry was last updated (you can only ever see the date it was first uploaded).

This discussion is turning into a discussion of the *how* and less of the *what* and the *why*. Surely the _content_ is the main issue. Once we have established what has to be changed and to what extent and how often, we can then start talking about how many volunteers are required to do the job and what technical additions (if any) are necessary. I repeat: the functions the site offers already are sufficient to carry out this work. It is just a case of putting them to proper use and not fiddling around with the system and confusing the researchers even further.

I am online 3-4 hours a day, all in all, plus off-line sub-editting time, and am still confused about what the difference between peer review and the writing workshop are, plus which there are at least three buttons on this version of the mask that I have never used.

The average researcher knows how to post, how to write an entry and how to search. Why should it be any more complicated than that? This place is here for the sake of writing and discussion on topics that matter, not for fiddling with computers or working out complicated editing hierarchies.

Even if you think the rest of this is waffle - please consider the idea of a "last update" line in the credits of entries.

Nothing wrong with waffle... had some for tea in fact.

The 'last updated' thing would be good, although I think at present there is little updating, hence the discussion.

I don't see the need for further buttons in this process, or anything else to confuse general researchers. I do still think that a proper updating process needs to be implemented in the near future, and with the BBC's greater resources and determination to keep things 'accurate' this should be less problematic than might have previously been the case.

As Peregrin said, former Subs may no longer be subbing, plus most researchers don't approach subs with their comments anyway, so something a bit more 'structured' is needed.

~A~

As posted on the subs mailing list

IMHO, another problem area is that new entries get linked to older ones but the older ones don't get linked back to the new ones.

I thought that was the main purpose of Jimi X's mammoth task.

Glad you agree with me on the point of not cluttering up the screen with buttons. The "last update" would be most useful for unedited entries, so that people can follow, for example, members' lists being updated and seeing just how up-to-date the page is, so they can inform the author when it's time to add something. I would certainly like that, for the GerManiaConnection etc.

My feeling on the subject is that a new scheme of updaters would be a good thing. The Subs currently process Scouts' picks, and that works really well. I get the feeling that adding to the Subs' role would only complicate matters (and updating isn't specifically a Subs role at the moment, as far as I can remember).

Besides, if there was another scheme, there's no reason why those Subs who want to be involved in updating can't join both schemes, but having two schemes has the following advantages:

* People can pick which one they like best, or can do both.

* We can schedule and therefore quantify the different aspects more easily. Subbing requirements are easy to calculate given the Scouts' output, and if we want to put more entries into the Edited Guide, we get more Scouts and Subs - it's easy. If some Subs are also updating, that makes the process calculations more difficult, and the management of copy flow more challenging. If it's a different scheme, though, then calculations for both new and updated entries are easier.

* It's another badge.

* Currently the only reason we don't allow updating is because the internal tools do not cater for updates, only new entries. We looked into it, and it would get horribly complex if we updated at the same time as the normal editorial process. Therefore we need two things if we are to update:

1. New tools. We have had a new programmer, Dharmesh, join us today, and he's going to be looking at internal tools, so we are giving this (and automation of Peer Review etc) priority.

2. In-house resources to manage another scheme. We are currently flat out with managing the current schemes, and although new tools will help reduce the amount of process involved in managing volunteers, that won't change for a while.

* But, in summary, creating some kind of updating solution is one of the next things in the plan, so your thoughts are very welcome. Keep talking!

Thanks for the feedback Mark. You can put my name down for the new scheme as and when.

I would suggest that anyone taking on the updating would need to be fairly familiar with the guide, so former or current Subs, and those in the other schemes would seem to be the most suitable. Certainly, having experience of Sub-editing entries in the first place would make the updating task a lot easier for the volunteers involved, and hopefully ease the strain at your end too.

~A~

Sounds like a good idea to me. Especially the thing about back-linking older Entries to newer ones. Newer Entries tend to have lots more links in them than the older ones do, simply because there are more Entries for them to link to, so it would be great if the older ones could be updated to cross-reference in the same way, thus taking full advantage of the hypertext environment the Guide is built in. Did that make sense?

Plus a "last modified" date on an Entry would be good, because I've seen Edited Entries just completed that are dated early 2000, in late 2000, and so forth. Looks a bit strange... but that's something for elsewhere.

After some thought, and to sum up what improvements ought to have priority (IMHO) I would just like to leave a post-it type note right here:

A. Changes and "improvements" should be kept to an absolute minimum. The site is nearly perfect and when it gets there, stop. Don't keep fiddling.

B. Most new ideas can be carried out with the technology already available.

C: Despite the above, it would be nice, but not life-saving, to have a way to mark where you last got to in a conversation/thread, if you didn't actually post, but caught up. The present choice is "latest posting" or your own last posting in the thread. This point is usually somewhere in between. You can just earmark by posting an empty box or a full stop, but that, to my mind, is not netiquette.

D. It is absolutely indispensible, as has already been said, to be able to see when an entry was last edited, not simply when it was first uploaded, probably in the form of a basic draft at the time.

E. This is the real mind-blower: Why not do away with the concept of edited entries all together. Not that I don't want to be a subeditor, but when I do a search for something, I am indiscriminate about whether I read up an edited entry or not yet edited entry, to find out. And, let's face it, unless I actually go to the places I am editing an entry about, I can't really judge if what is said is true. Even less so, if the entry is on some abstract scientific topic. So there is no guarantee that an edited entry is the ultimate and true source of information on the subject it is about.

In other words, from the user point of view, it is immaterial if an entry is an edited entry or not. Obviously from the volunteers', and the PTB's point of view, there is a difference, but it takes a while to be able to recognise the difference between an entry that is edited and one that is not, when just reading the entry on your screen.

If entries weren't put into the rigid "Edited Guide" they could be updated with no fuss at all.

F. It would be neat to be able to limit a search in the conversation forums. For example, if I know that someone mentioned 'combine harvesters' or some similarly obscure subject in a conversation I took part in, I don't need the search engine to spew out all mentions of combine harvesters that took place over the last two years. As these searches only produce the headings over the postings, which I often forget to read, I always find these searches rather difficult to use, and would like to make far more use of them.