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

Ok, theres alot of blog so I'll just be a pain and ask here hoping it hasnt already been answered: Is there or will there be a way to have more than one editor for an entry? This would be a huge help for clubs a society's where the ed does an elvis, or for collaborative entrys

Hear, hear! Researchers often mistake me for being the one who created the h2g2 Birthday pages when, in fact, I'm just the person who keeps them updated after some bloke elvised - or maybe he's just out for one of them relly long lunches?

Traveller in Time about multiple accounts editing one entry
"Nope, there is no way we can change any entry with more then one account at the time.

As in there is only one owner of each entry. ('The Editors' as in Italics have a backdoor key however.) "

Just referring back to Galaxy babe's comments in post 119, I'm really disappointed to see this voew being taken.

This type of entry is exactly what collaborative entries are all about. You might well be compiling it, but the comments that make up the bulk of the entry are other people's work and they deserve to be credited. Should this be accepted, we would expect every single contribuutor to have full attribution, just like the old Topic of the Week entries.

The Customisable credit should only be used when, aside from a link or a bit of additional research, the entire entry has been written by one person, or when someone has written a completely new entry to replace one that already exists in the Edited Guide. Entries that consist of multiple contributions must be fully credited.

Collaborative entries are especially valuable to h2g2 as, when they hit the Front Page, they generate automated messages that remind people to come back to the site.

Particularly given that in that particular example, the quotes currently make up well over 50% of the entry .

I see GB's point; even if an entry was 95% quotes, the job of compiling them and making a readable whole is not an easy one, it can show very good or very bad "authorship" and all varieties between.

This whole sorry debate arises solely from the ill-conceived decision to honour "solo" entries.

The compiler of a collaborative entry does essentially all the work; providing an idea is generally easy, even if the idea is a good one and even if it becomes central to the value of the entry.

Collaborative entries I have compiled include four very different levels of collaboration:

A1024156 'Ludwig Wittgenstein' was my work, tempered by criticisms gratefully received in PR;

A1084673 'How to Gamble and Win' was my work, incorporating verbatim a paragraph of mathematical demonstration offered in PR;

A1986951 Cyclists: 'Be Safe - Be Seen as a Bad Target' was utterly transformed by a tongue-in-cheek suggestion in PR, which I developed too become the entry's main conclusion;

A2466100 'How to Practise Music' was done by slipping my own ideas in alongside a lot of suggestions expressly gathered in PR.

In none of these do I resent the equal glory given to my co-authors, even though I did nearly all the writing (including tidying up the many contributions to 'How to Practise Music'). But of course at the time there was no percentage in claiming sole authorship. I merely followed the generous lead given by those who had co-credited me in entries to which I had raised objections in PR.

The general feeling is that comments offered in Peer Review are done so for the benefit of the entry and without expectation of a credit. But it's sometimes obvious that an entry has been given more than just a little steering through PR. I've rescued entries from Flea market and completely rewritten them, but still credited the original author if I've used more than a few words of theirs because I think it'll be a nice thing to do (cf my entries on Captain Scarlet and Mother Teresa).

As far as writing Edited Entries goes though, I don't think anything's changed. You should still credit people if they've helped your entry substantially. Collaborative entries should always credit anyone whose quotes you've used and if someone supplies a paragraph or more that you then use, it's only good manners to acknowledge that.

Customisable crediting can be done if someone found you a particularly handly link, or pointed you in a direction you'd have never thought of going in, but who didn't actually write anything for the entry itself. It can also be used if you've updated an old entry that you've completely rewritten. But it should never be used to bypass crediting to contribute to a researcher's solo count.

However, we agree with Mina's point about crediting the person who compiles a collaborative entry.

Therefore, the Customisable Credits that we'll accept are:

Original Entry by:

Additional Research by:

Compiled by:

Illustrated by:

I must be very tired, I still don't understand
"crediting the person who compiles a collaborative entry" does that mean it counts towards the solo tally? Or not?

Any chance of this in a nutshell?

Traveller in Time trying to explain
"Then it must be pretty hopeless


Collaborate Entry as in where many Researchers contributed a tiny part, as well as the collaborator. The Collaborator gets a special creit for collecting all the parts into one entry.

Solo Entry as in one Researcher wrote all the text, perhaps in some words adjusted and corrected by other Researchers (Peer Review). On occasion the main author can decide to give credit to a Researcher for providing a key part in the Entry.


"

So, the seti@home project which I put together A649893 - would earn me a credit as author?

I would still like to re-iterate Post 89.

B

With the additional comment that the Towers have made these changes possible with the expectations that people will use them in a realistic, mature and sensible way. I sympathise with them when this doesn't happen.

B

And what would "The voice in Lord Wolfden's head" know about being realistic, mature and sensible?

I never claimed that TVILWH was part of the Edited Guide, though. Big diff.

Have some perspective, [Personal details removed by Moderator] dear. And I do mean that positively. In the long run what does it matter if an online encyclopedia features your name one more - or fewer - times than it did before? Life's too short.

B

Mine too

This Credit thing went to mine, but I'm over it now

MJ

I very much respect the italic's decision and will be abiding by it to the best of my ability.

GB - (and I've been trying to adjust this question so it doesn't sound rude or hypocritical, but I realize that would be almost impossible, so I'll just ask) Why does the solo edited entry tally mean so much? The badge is an obvious incentive, but a badge is just a badge after all I wouldn't feel right about keeping a badge if I didn't feel I earned it, and I wouldn't feel like an entry was solo if someone else wrote part of it. Any significant part of it.

Yeah, that did come off as rather rude and hypocritical, but there it is. Sorry.

Traveller in Time playing with the noncustomisable tag
"For what I have found the normal Tag did already exist in June 2000. (Digging archives )




... Credited for the poem


... Credited for the magical marquee




We should probably credit 'Bruce' or 'Jim Lynn' for showing the code. "

Have some perspective ?

OK then, with all due respect to the Italics, they get paid for what they do. We are volunteers and therefore don't. All I get is the recognition as a writer and cudos when an entry hits the front page.

"Life's too short" - What difference does it make to you, how I spend my time? If I want to sit at a computer and write, that's my decision. I have a life offline, but I get more joy from my entries, they're my babies. The older you get the more you realize how precious life is, and I intend to spend my remaining (spare) time doing what I want, not caring for other people, which is what I do now.

The seti entry - it irked me when that hit the front page, it was a lot of work putting it together and I made sure I credited everyone. Nowhere can you tell I was the author.

With all due repect to the Italics, when people get a email to say they've helped grow the guide, they don't return to the site. They may log back in, but once they've elvised, they're out of the habit, and they don't stick around.

Just

Every entry anyone writes would not be as good as it is without the time and effort that *every* contributor makes. Surely our aim here is to ensure that entries are the best thety can be, not collect badges.


The entry itself is the reward, not the little graphic.