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

I think that's what they said too, but I think they also said that this new tag thingy was an expansion of the feature. Or something.

Traveller in Time browsing the Guide
"After a brief search I came up with an early example.
< A4186181 > (Front Page: 13 July 2005)

I think they only realised lately the option can also be extended to other credits. "

""There were about two hundred Edited Entries on the official Launch date."

Are you sure the entries weren't created on that date and then upgraded to Edited later on?

Traveller in Time reading comments
"I even came accross a comment, suggesting an entry was edited, dated 30th April 1999. Anyway the day entries are Edited shows above (brunel), the number does not correspond always with other entries from that date.
These Entries where created by the 'old writing team', sure you know about them.

Point is, as Gnomon noticed, the text is wrong for unedited entries. However as we are used to see it, it could be changed for Edited Entries for example 'Lifted to the Edited State by:' and then the _fixed_ part of the SUB-Editor name tag. "

It's just that I heard from Peta that Mark Moxon invented the EG, and he wasn't there on launch day. I could have got it wrong of course! She could have meant that he invented the 'process', rather than the 'status'.

Personally it's never bothered me what the credits say, although it would be interesting to know why 'edited' was chosen for normal entries.

Traveller in Time history of < PeerReview >
"< A942563 > [Reject] button story"

That doesn't mean it was there from day one...

Traveller in Time going to search for the old conversations
"I just have a single process on this system, will dig something up tonight. "

Er, I don't understand what you mean, but I probably shouldn't be arguing about something that's not really important anyway. Sorry!

Traveller in Time imagining a company trying to promote an empty 'Earth Edition of Guide'
"I have no idea how real the dates are, we just have to trust it is not completely messed up.

The point was where the text 'Edited by:' could originate from. I think, though I have not found this for sure, part of the process to get an entry edited in the early days, was submitting it via email to the Editors. On the other side for what I read, only after some days there was a link to [Write an entry] on other pages then your 'Create a Journal' page. (the first bug)
Resuming, from day two on Researchers could create 'unedited Entries'. And only from early 2000, voluntary SUB-Editors would create Edited Entries too. "

I use the old entries as much as I can in current entries. I linked to one by the "old writing team" the other day. I also link to DNA's "tea" entry as often as possible too.

I am going to add a DNAID to DNA with every new one I write, because if it wasn't for him, I wouldn't be here and I wouldn't have met...

oh don't get me started, I had a great start to the day.

This is very cool in so many ways! Great to see something done about it.

But...

(You so knew there was going to be a "but" didn't you? )


>>> we're not going to get into the nightmare scenario of arguing about entries that are, at the moment, credited to multiple authors, but which may (or may not) have actually only been written by one person. You'll understand that in many cases these articles might have been written years and years ago - even before any of the current Italics arrived on the site. Consequently, rather than offending any individuals, we simply can't enter into discussions on those lines.

Bugger.

I mean, I understand why but, even so, bugger!

This penalises the good guys, guys! The folks who have been fair with with co-credits aren't going to have the record put straight, and the ones who were unfair might, but only if they do something about it.

I really do appreciate that you have more to do with your time than sort out ages old entries, but I cannot help feeling a tadlet peeved with myself that I made the wrong call when I co-credited people who offered a phrase I nicked or asked questions which provoked a paragraph in reply. One of the reasons I slowed down in writing entries altogether was the glory given for 'solo entries' which were considerably less solo than some of the one's I'd given co-credits on. And now there will be even greater glory for 'solo' entries, but no chance for those of us who were generous to put the record straight.

However, I do accept you have massively better things to do with your time. And, as I said, I did learn my lesson.

B
(Actually the main author of A878204, A845930, A827381, A778124, A738821 (though I wouldn't have the heart or the bad grace to remove the co-credit from that one), and A724970, which brings my solo entries up to: 17 instead of 11. I'd also argue for a strong credit in A613054, A753527 (ing strong in that case!), and A1053901, since I pulled those into coherent collaborative entries from a fairly bizzare set of threads.)

If someone writes a paragraph of one of my entries, I reckon they deserve full credit as co-author, and I will continue to give them it.

I have the opposite problem. There was an entry a while back where I've got a co-credit, but I'll I did was suggest re-structuring the entry so that it flows better. Didn't write a single word of it myself, but the author (unknown to me at the time) kindly gave me a co-credit.

So, I'm not the main author of the entry, but I'd prefer to be relagated to a minor credit rather than a co-author credit. But if only main authors can ask, then I can't.


Geggs

Well then in that case, drop the main author a line suggesting the amendment to the credits. I'm sure it'll be a very pleasant surprise for him/her!

P

"It's just that I heard from Peta that Mark Moxon invented the EG, and he wasn't there on launch day."

The Edited Guide was there from day one. What Mark refined was the process of getting entries into the edited guide. We started off accepting any submissions, and the in-house team had to do all the work. Then Sub Editors were recruited to do this work - they'd get ten entries, and have to decide which to accept and which to reject.

Then, vegiman suggested the idea of Field Critiques, which eventually turned into Peer Review. Which is where we are now.

When I say "We started off accepting any submissions" I meant that all submissions went into a queue, which the team had to work through, accepting or (more often) rejecting them as they came up.

"Well then in that case, drop the main author a line suggesting the amendment to the credits. I'm sure it'll be a very pleasant surprise for him/her! "

Paully, this suggests that for entries that currently show co-author credits where the work was pretty much done by one researcher, things *can* still be changed. However, they can only be changed if everyone currently given a co-author credit agrees that solo-entry status should be returned to the main author with the other researchers given some other kind of credit. I understand that in the case of disputes you guys will not want to get involved, but if everyone is in agreement can those articles be changed?

What happens if researchers have Elvised? (not a problem for me but I'm curious).

I would guess in that case we would just have to keep the status quo, as people can't agree if they aren't here to ask. This is probably what they meant when they said that these sorts of co-credits can't be changed