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

As Jim Bowen would say - Great, smashing, super!

Thanks for the time and effort guys, and as Shazz said the vote of confidence in us to behave like adults.

Cheers for the clarification.

If there is no policy of systematically reviewing unedited entries, when an Edited entry fails to pass the revised interpretation of the guidelines would it be possible to switch it back to "unedited" status and attach the A-number to the original author's (or original editor's, in the case of collaborative work) personal space? That way there would be no untidy "This entry has been removed" messages, and existing links would still work. All that would have been done in effect would be to withdraw the BBC's "stamp of approval", which is a far less controversial action.

Blimey - if the Italics are going to answer questions I ask so positively and so quickly then I just have to ask "Any chance of lending me fifty quid? I'll pay you back at the weekend..."

B

>>> Any chance of lending me fifty quid?

No

Ben, have you tried EdPol?

We have been questioning the process, the means (and even the right) of deleting entries for negative reasons. Apparently we do so because we object to anonymous, arbitrary, discretionary and unexplained editorial policy and fear that all entries are not being treated equally.

What difference then that a similarly mysterious process occurs when certain entries get positive treatment and are made a little more equal than others. Simply, as a matter of perspective, let me raise the issue of 'Recommended Entries'.

Any search will produce a list of entries and a few, a very few, will be marked as 'Recommended'. There is nothing I can see in the HR or Guidelines to detail by what manner or procedure any EG entry is bestowed with this higher status. It seems to be an arbitrary decision and presumably based upon undisclosed agreement among unidientified editors without consultation or explanation. I fail to see how this practise differs from the recent deletions in question.

I realise you are all tired and frazzled from this debate and your very real concern that something of h2g2 might be lost here. My own position has always been that the Beeb as host has, as any host should, the right to refuse service and admission to some and to elevate other guests to the head table without being called to account by the other guests.

Utimately it must be allowed that they may do so and they will do so. And whether that special attention is (negative) rejection/deletion or (positive) elevation to a higher status and perpetual notation of a special 'recommended' status, it is not ours to reason why.

In any case, my point is that those who would object to the negative actions, on principles of democracy and fair play, really ought to be including their equal objection to the (equal-but-opposite) positive discrimination of 'recommended' status.


go fourth and multiply
~jwf~

jwf, a 'recommended' entry is one which has been picked from PR, but hasn't been edited yet.

Well, replace 'recommended Entries' with 'Pick of the Day' and the point remains the same, methinks...

>> Ben, have you tried EdPol?



It's in a good cause, though. My TV licence is due for payment today.

B

Three and half years I been here, and that's the first time anyone has ever explained what has always looked to me like the most blatant and casual form of patronage and favouritism.

I thnk I feel better already.


~jwf~

I guess it isn't obvious. It's recommended in the sense that a Scout has recommended it for editing.

Pick of the Day- true, but that confers no lasting status, beyond the blob.

True enough.

(who is very proud of his blobs all the same...)

I notice my question wasn't answered.

Of course not - we asked tricky ones.

Well, I always find it is simplest to start with bite-sized chunks when asking questions. That way I do tend to get answers.

B

I was careful to ask one specific question, rather than to ask for a sweeping review of policy...

Yeah, you are right, you did Peet. I must have used up the site's answer-allowance for the day with my lot.

You asked:

Peet's Question: >>> If there is no policy of systematically reviewing unedited entries, when an Edited entry fails to pass the revised interpretation of the guidelines would it be possible to switch it back to "unedited" status and attach the A-number to the original author's (or original editor's, in the case of collaborative work) personal space? That way there would be no untidy "This entry has been removed" messages, and existing links would still work. All that would have been done in effect would be to withdraw the BBC's "stamp of approval", which is a far less controversial action.

The nearest info we have so far is the Eds answer to my question:

Ben's Question: >>>4) If an entry is deemed unacceptable, is it ok for the Author to make changes and re-submit it to PR for comment and feedback? I know PR isn't a workshop, but the feedback there is one of the strengths of h2g2.

Ed's reply: This would very much depend on the entry in question. Some are suitable for reworking, others might not be. So it is difficult to give a definitive answer.

Not particularly helpful, and since I am assuming that it is relavent, not necessarily accurate. If I were you I would ask your question again - it is a good one.

B

Sorry, that should read:

Not particularly helpful, and since I don't know it is relavent, only assuming that it is, it is not necessarily accurate. If I were you I would ask your question again - it is a good one.

Ben
*getting rather fond of her titfer*

"Nice fer!"