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

Entry: 'Star Trek' – Impulse Engines and Warp Drive - A56134343
Author: Galaxy Babe - U128652



GB & h5ringer

"After a period of experimentation with ion1 drives in the 21st Century, humankind would have to await the development of a method of controlling fusion power before it was able to seriously consider travelling further afield."

So when exactly does this bit happen then? I thought we hadn't perfected an ion engine?

At no point in this entry do you point out it's about a fictional device. And it's late to mention it, but neither did that Phasers entry.

What happened to "Write about reality"?

<>
Indeed not, but then we still have just over 90 years of the 21st Century left to do so

<>
The title of this and other entries in this collection all have 'Star Trek' in them. The Star Trek series is reality, just as a novel by F Scott Fitzgerald or a film by Quentin Tarantino is reality.

We've not made an ion engine, yet you're presenting it as fact.

As for books/films. Fair point, but if you have a look at entries on books/films: A973631 for example, it clearly points out that we're dealing with a work of fiction. A2451700 - clearly points out a set of Star Trek books is a work of fiction. A6756159 - Guess what? Says it's a work of fiction.

Now let's look at this entry.

"When humans first stepped off their home planet of Earth in the Sol System to travel to Earth's nearest space body — its Moon, a distance of merely 400,000km — it took them three days to get there." - Fact. Good start.

"After a period of experimentation with ion1 drives in the 21st Century, humankind would have to await the development of a method of controlling fusion power before it was able to seriously consider travelling further afield." - Fiction presented as fact. Bad.

We then get on to stuff like this:

"Lt Thomas Eugene (Tom) Paris of Voyager reached warp factor 10 in a modified shuttle during one of the many attempts by the crew to return home from the Delta Quadrant." - Fictional anecdote presented as fact.

I hate to do this, believe me, but would you kindly take a look at this link? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warp_drive

"Warp drive is a faster-than-light (FTL) propulsion system in the universe of many science fiction settings, most notably including Star Trek."

"Warp drive is one of the fundamental features of the Star Trek storyline"

Analysis of fiction, admitting that it's fiction.

It's a well written entry, but it's not fact and you make no attempt whatsoever to enlighten the reader that you're talking about fiction. Yes, you have "Star Trek" in the title, but that immediately requires that the reader knows what Star Trek is. Assuming that a person has a familiarity with a television show instead of telling them that they're reading about a fictional device is frankly lazy writing.

A706835



Hi Psycorp - you accuse the authors of (in your words) 'lazy writing'

Perhaps you may yourself be guilty of slightly lazy reading as the second paragraph

>>>
Fast-forward to the 23rd Century,(link to A379569 SCIENCE FICTION AND FANTASY)


... when space exploration has come of age. Starships of the United Federation of Planets (Link to A706835 Star Trek - the SCIENCE FICTION Phenomenon)

I'm sorry to have to spell it out to you in big letters, but you ought to pay more attention to the a piece before launching in with unjustifiable criticism.

So now I have to click on the links to find out that this is about fiction? Not doing so makes my criticism unjustifiable?

Right. Here's my entirely justified argument.

1) This piece is about a fictional device.
2) At no point IN THE PIECE is it made clear that the device is fictional.
3) Fictional future events, characters and technology is presented as fact.
4) Expecting someone to have a knowledge of a certain television programme so that they can understand that a "factual" entry is in fact not that, is in my eyes unreasonable.
5) Expecting someone to click through to each and every link in order to find out that a "factual" entry is in fact not factual is also unreasonable.

Say I wrote an article on the War of the Worlds, just called "The War of The Worlds - The War".

Then I started it with the date that said war started, explained the motivations of the antagonists and detailed major engagements in the style of a straight FACTUAL entry without ever mentioning I was talking about a book.

Would that be fine? The War of the Worlds is slightly less famous than Star Trek, but where do we draw the line? Could I write a similar article about a pulp sci-fi book "The War in 2020?"

I have changed the intro. I hope that's sufficient

<> between reality and fantasy? We have edited articles on Heaven, Hell, Angels, God, etc. Are they reality?

That's all it needed!

With regards to drawing the line, I think it's a bit strange lumping together a TV programme (Star Trek) with religious mythology. Whilst I don't believe that there is a God, any theist will tell you that the potential (or believed) existence of God or Gods is central to the way they view their lives. Plus, you (supposedly) "can't disprove the existence of God". There's no such argument over the 23rd Century adventures of Captain Kirk.

Me personally? No, I believe in lots of things, but I prefer not to discuss them here. As long as the entries are entertaining, and make great reading and people don't mind the "dry, factual" stuff tagged on the end

Hi GB

I don't think Psycorp's criticism is unjustifed at all.

You have to imagine these articles as standalone pieces, so somebody might Google and find the Entry. h2g2 Researchers might click on various links to find out the details, but a random Googler wouldn't.

It needs to be clear, right at the start and explicitly stated, that you are referring to a work of fiction. Your first paragraph makes h2g2 sound like a fan-site, and if this were the first Entry I read here I would presume it were a place for Star Trek/Red Dwarf/Arthur C Clarke fans rather than a definitive Guide.

'When humans first stepped off their home planet of Earth in the Sol System to travel to Earth's nearest space body — its Moon, a distance of merely 400,000km — it took them three days to get there. To travel across the vast distances of interstellar space would require far, far greater propulsion power than that provided by primitive solid fuel rockets, the only form of propulsion known at that time. After a period of experimentation with ion drives in the 21st Century, humankind would have to await the development of a method of controlling fusion power before it was able to seriously consider travelling further afield.'

Halfway through the paragraph, at 'After a period of experimentation...' it ceases to be factual. That remains confusing, because you leap from fact to fiction. The only issue I have with this piece is that fact is presented as fiction, and that the lines are far too blurred.

'Central to the operation of a warp engine is the warp core, in which the matter-antimatter reaction occurs, controlled by a dilithium crystal. Dilithium is the only substance known to science that does not react with antimatter.'

But we don't even know if antimatter exists, do we? Let alone what reacts to it?

If this kind of work is to get into the EG, it needs to be much more blatant about what is 'Star Trek Theory' and what isn't. The 'Phasers' Entry was fascinating, because none of it was factual but pretends to be so, and it makes me wonder why some of the better narrative-based historical pieces were turned down. Why can we not allow well-researched, factual, narrative historical pieces into the EG when we can allow fictional pieces with no basis in science which are presented as fact?

question: >>remain a priviledge-> is that a British spelling?
My dictionary spells it privilege.

priviledge = privilege

<>

I didn't say that, and I tweaked the intro to accommodate his comments.

As for the rest, I'll let h5ringer answer

GB

No - I accept the blame for saying psycorp's criticism was unjustified.
I was a little snappy. But I believe that the way the article was written is just a device to lead the reader to suspend belief, not to actually consider it 'fact'. It gives the article a more approachable style, rather than listing the mechanical constructs of the show.

"But I believe that the way the article was written is just a device to lead the reader to suspend belief"

Which begs the question, should you be suspending disbelief in a factual guide?

Remind me, what does 'h2g2' stand for? Oh yes, I remember now: 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy'

Have we now reached the point where all entries should be scrutinized for any sign of deviation from the fact-line and carry an advisory notice to that effect: A56369622

So be it, in which I suggest that this and all other Star Trek entries that GB and I have collaborated on be removed from PR. I leave it to GB to decide whether or not to delete them completely.

That's a really mature way to engage with a valid point. Well done. I'm impressed.

calmly guys, ive read all of the trek entries so far and find them interesting articles, i would say that they style of writing makes it reasonably obvious that the article is concerning fiction. I would sayh all is fine concerning the previous points, although squablling over peer review would seem counter produtive over the whole idea. Anyone have any iddeas on the actual content of the piece?

Content's fine. Style's great. I've not doubted that these are cracking, Guideworthy entries.

All I've questioned is that they portray fiction as fact, and require the suspension of disbelief. Instead of engaging with that point, h5ringer's thrown his toys out of the pram. That's fine, we've all done it. But it doesn't address the very valid points Rich and I raised.

We've never said it should be dry, and I like the style the way it is, all we're debating is a small point over how much this needs to be tweaked (TWEAKED, not re-written, not thrown away, TWEAKED) to meet the writing guidelines.

Please do NOT remove these Entries from PR, they are here to solve this sort of problem

They won't be removed, I want to see our work published. I will tweak as necessary to fit the guidelines.

GB