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

I don't think the Edited Guide should be abandoned... it's a good thing IMO. However, it would be nicer if it was easier for a Researcher to update an Edited Entry. Thus perhaps have an "Update this Entry" button for the author to use, which would maybe spawn another copy of it which the Researcher can update as needed, and which then sneaks through the editing process without going through Peer Review again?

Unfortunately it would be a lot of extra work to implement the thing... definitely not an option at the moment.

I like the Edited Guide entries, because when I search for entries on something I know that an edited entry will actually be about the subject title, whereas an ordinary entry could be about someting totally odd and unrelated.

Pegasus ~carrying a black towel~

Yes - I think I might take a rain check on that one. But there's still no guarantee that the content of the entry is correct, though.

I think that really applies to any record, historical or otherwise. The 'facts' are always open to misunderstanding, editorial bias, and outright lies, as well as individual interpretation.

The idea with h2g2 is to create a fluid Guide, which can reflect fluctuations in current thinking, new information, and the opportunity for mistakes to be rectified. Best of all, it's a true community project which reflects the interests and knowledge of it's contributors, and allows for a lot of discussion.

That all sounded rather obvious really, didn't it? I think what I was basically trying to say is that nobody's perfect!

~A~

Or perhaps 'beauty (and truth) are in the eye of the beholder'.

Well considering we all view the world independantly of each other, I would have thought that was fairly self-evident. Of course, in the world you see it might not be - but it is in mine after a bit of thought.

I'm glad we agree then.

* nods *

After a bit of on-line thinking (conversation with Gnomon on my home page "Gnomon's Wexford entry) and having discussed what one should expect from entries, it would seem that the essence of the guide is that each entry is very unique, individual and subjective in its reporting style and content.

But, notwithstanding that the content of an entry is not guaranteed to be accurate or comprehensive, the updating problem should really be given more thought and top priority.

Otherwise the "fluidity" can't be guaranteed.

Yes. It won't be fluid if there's no updating...

Stumbled over this thread, and must stay I'm inclined to agree with Mark's summary (post #17 of this thread). I'm interested to know what progress has been made.

Also, I wholy like the idea of a 'last updated' date in the right margin, but not if it means the expulsion of the 'date posted' date. I'd like to retain both, if possible.

As to the difficulty distinguishing Offical Edited Pages from just any entry, I agree with [at least most of] what's been said here, and offer this suggestion (I don't know how simple the actual -implementation- would be, but the -idea- seems simple enough): A new letter before the entries. Once I believe we had A and P entries. What ever happened to the Ps? Ideally, what I'd like to see is A123456 become GE123456 once it has become an official entry. (Or somesuch -- the point being that the numbers don't change and the letters do.)

Give that mouse a piece of cheese! Good idea Nony.

Sorry - we only stumbled on this by accident, as we'd unsubscribed.

Progress: the main stumbling block with implementing an update scheme has always been resources, but you'll be glad to know we've just had the budget rubber-stamped to employ two new people, and one of the things that's top of the list is an updating scheme. Hopefully we'll be looking into it from mid-February onwards, so any thoughts would be much appreciated, of course.

What wouldn't I do to be able to join the rush of researchers applying for those jobs.

The problem with getting rid of "Edited" pages is that there would then be no way to check the spelling, grammer etc. of any entries in the guide, as that job is currently carried out by the subeds.

Also, when you are searching for info. on a specific topic and you find multiple entries on it, you would tend to go for the edited one as it *should* contain the most accurate information.

>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

That's what the forum system on guide entries is for. Example: if someone writes a guide about Manchester containing inaccurate information, eventually someone else from Manchester might realise it and post about it.

Hi Everyone,

There's loads of good stuff in here and I'm now looking into the possibility of introducing an updater/revisionist volunteers scheme and was wondering if anyone had any more thoughts on this. Or, are there any other discussions that I should go and have a look at? I'm not sure when anything official will go ahead, but it's a start!



Anna

Wonders about the strange echo in the thread

To be honest, I hadn't noticed Anna's post. It kind of got buried on all the other threads on my Space...

Such a scheme would be great, I think... I don't know if I'd have time to do it (if I did, I'd be a Sub-Ed as well I suppose) but it's definitely something that needs to be done, and a proper volunteer scheme for it would be the best way to go about it, I think.

Especially if at some point there was a button to press to say "hey, this needs work!" or something on Edited Entries. Although that wouldn't be necessary to get things running...

Hi MaW,

I was thinking, and I think it occured to Jimi X too, inspired by postings here and elsewhere, that we'd have a Peer Review type system where Researchers would put up candidates for revision in a forum, the entry could be discussed and added to at length and then picked, according to a set of agreed criteria, by a Scout-type person. Then it would be sent out to a Sub-type person. And then put up on the front page in an 'h2g2 Revisited' section.

Or something like that

Anna

That's what I was thinking! It must be a good idea if all three of us think it sounds good. Maybe a new Review Forum which you could send Edited Entries to for updating? The required updates could be described in the posts on the conversation forum about the Entry, and then amalgamated by a Sub-like person. Or, maybe it could copy the Entry to give a working copy the submitter could have write access to. It should of course also notify the original author.

But that's not all necessary to start with I guess, it could be done like Peer Review used to be while it gets off the ground, I suppose.

And 'h2g2 Revisited' sounds odd. What's wrong with 'Updated Entries'?