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

With reference collaborative entries, perhaps the additional credit should be used to credit the (er,?) collaborator?

For instance I put together a Topic of the Week on The Great Fire of London, and I know some other TotW have done similar. Rather than moving everyone else down to 'additional info by', perhaps we should consider 'compiled by' and have my name, Ben's name, or whoever, down there. As no other names are being moved, then no permission is needed. Or is that what you're suggesting, and I'm just fuddled cos I'm not well?

Of course, this is providing the Eds want to spend time adding bits of code to older entries.

I should point out I'm really glad to see it being used for the Artists. And if the Eds are interested, I'd be prepared to go back through time and create the code for all of the old ones that don't have it. Although I can see that's going to take some work, so I won't push.

PS, thanks for Jim Lynn for clarifying in the backlog. Having been here 6 years I think I know everything - those first 6 months I always think nothing happened until I got here.

Sorry for talking to myself, but just realised that compiled by won't give a solo badge.

However, is there any reason we can't then have a badge for compiling entries? With the numbers being slightly lower due to the large amount of work...

Traveller in Time no where near any Badger
"That should be a badge for collaborating 42 entries "

Ah, good to see we're all worrying about the important things.
I agree with Gnomon... I'm going to continue to co-credit researchers who provide quotes, significant chunks of information and when they're really, truly helping. (if they accept the offer, of course)

I could go back to my entries and ask the Eds to change the coding - I think that alone might put me over 100, and I could retire, move to Florida and sip tropical drinks in a lounge chair all day. But that isn't right. If someone provided a quote or a lot of development help - I have news for you - it's not a solo effort. They helped write it. If it's based on other people's experiences - do you really consider it to be a work all your own?
Looking back, there are occasions when I should have offered co-credits and didn't, but I think it's too late for that, just like I think it's too late for us to go back and give less credit to those who helped write it.

That's one of the great downsides of this solo entries badge. It discourages collaboration. Hopefully, we'll be able to provide some more collaborative credits with this new system in the future though

A real, genuine collaboration will come from a great deal of sources in any case - think about Ben's entries that started as a thread in Ask. With that many, it makes sense to co-credit.

I agree there is a fine line between full crediting one co-author and acknowledging them is a fine one. Geggs contributed a single para to an Entry I have in Subbing and is happy to be acknowledged. I would generally co-credit anyone who had a lengthy (ie more than 4-5 posts) and productive conversation resulting in a significant improvement to the Entry, but it is entirely subjective and largely common sense.

B

You're right that it's subjective.
Today, I would prefer to co-credit someone who's put a paragraph in (The crazy golf one, right?) if only because I wouldn't feel right taking credit as a sole author. Tomorrow, I may wake up and have a craving for the 100 entry badge and say - Credit? What do you mean credit? You only wrote one paragraph!

Those are two moods, not different people, but you get the idea.

With Ben's entry, I'd argue that none of the Ask contributors are really co-authors, but since the bulk of it is not written by one person, there's no sole author either. Sorry Ben

Last line - I meant to say 'entries' instead of entry and 'even if none of the Ask...'

How's that edit button coming along?

*wonders if she should ask to have credits put on A641260--after all, a couple of questions led to it being almost twice as long!*

I don't really want to labour the point, but.

Jodan - OK, I grant you are doing a routine courtesy, but think of it from the flipside: if you had contributed 1 paragraph towards someone else's entry, would you really feel you had deserved the co-credit? I wouldn't. Likelihood is, you'd subscribe to the Entry's forum when it hits the Front Page and think no more about it.

B

There's a Remove My Name function. Usually people offer credits first.
Myself, I don't know when I'd turn down an offer. If I contributed a direct quote, I wouldn't remove a credit off, though I wouldn't be offended by one of these new customizable acknowledgements. That's just because I *always* credit people who give me direct quotes though.

Contributing one paragraph towards an entry is worthy of a credit. Whether I'd take it or not would probably depend on my mood. If I'm being the benevolent, giving , yes I'd refuse. That's not the point though - the author should offer credit where he believes it's due. Whether it remains is the next part.

It's all subjective, of course. All depends on the people, the places and the golf courses.

Someone put my name on an entry after I'd commented in PR. When it hit the FP and I got the email letting me know, I couldn't see anything I'd suggested had got into the finished work! I didn't ask to be taken off, it seemed churlish, but I'd never expect to go on an entry even if I'd contributed stuff that was quoted directly, *unless* other people were also credited for their contributions, such as the Guide to short words, which I was extremely surprised to see come out as collaborative.

I go into PR to help make entries better, not to gain more credits.

Traveller in Time still with a balloon stand
"I credit people sometimes to give them a link to a certain unedited entry .

Some find out after more then a year . . . "

this is very interesting.


but conzzuzeling,
J-42

Will we still be able to remove our names from entries if we want to?

Traveller in Time changing an edited entry
"On request . "

You can't take your name of an EG entry anyway.

Can I suggest to the Italics that the <./>GuideML-Clinic</.> page be updated to include the new code?

I apologize if this is in the backlog, but I've realized how you *can* see yourself as a "referenced researcher" while the entry is being written/in Peer Review/ pre-edited.

Example: A5264552 I wrote this entry but it's not set PR alight and I've asked at Ask H2G2 for contributions, of which so far, there's one.
I've added uncharted666 this way:

uncharted666

and it shows up as "Referenced Researcher"

I consider this to be MY entry and asking for quotes from separate people doesn't make them co-authors, IMHO.

This is a great new tag, giving credit where credit is due, and I'm going to add it to all my other entries where people have helped in PR, etc.

Traveller in Time reading The Post < <./>ThePost</.> >
"The new bit is the 'Customisable' . . .

The Tag does already exist for quite a while. ( Years ! )"