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

Do I think that the italics are being deliberately underhanded, etc.

no.

why?

because if they were they would be much cleverer in how they did it.

Having said that, a persistant problem with talking to them (both here an in other threads) is the tendancy for them to act in accordance with the mantra "what have we done wrong", with an unbelievably large inability to understand the explanations given for what they did do wrong.

As I understand their views about the subject of this thread, the only thing that they think that they did wrong in this case at any point was to give this thread the wrong name.

I don't know about you, but I don't give them the credibility for honesty if they do understand what we are telling them about their mishandling of this case, or their professionalism if they don't understand.

with their current stated views, they can't have it both ways.

How about this then, xyroth? The italics we have *now* could adopt A Modest Proposal, because it saves them work, makes them look responsive, and allows them to be all the negative things we hope they're not. When the inevitable happens, sooner or later, and one or more of the italics is replaced, if A Modest Proposal is still in force, they could, with altering it one iota, make it what it intends to be - an fair and simple procedure for ensuring that a big decision is taken over a fixed, reasonable period, rather than being done hurriedly and then discussed and dissected for months.

As it stands, Modest Proposal is just as big an advantage to the italics whether they be the honourable, professional people one would hope anyone would be, or whether they be anything else.

We *have* to trust that they are honourable, professional, etc., because we have no choice. Harsh, but true. I do hope we see *something* this week (asking for a reaction tomorrow might be a bit much, I know when I get back from two weeks holiday... well, we won't go into that in case anyone pierces my cloak of anonymity and tells my employer! )

It's late, I'm a little drunk, so I'm signing off before I start typing the lyrics to "Show me the way to go home", or for that matter, "Fly me to the moon", which is going round in my head for some reason...

H.

Ben (post #1040) -

That's absolutely fine. Didn't intend to seem dismissive - I know how busy you've been elsewhere. I can plug in your version when you're ready.

I'm sure there's no rush.

-7r7

No Probs. I actually have time today and tomorrow....!

7love7

Ben

I'd just like to say here, quietly, that the italics have exhibited a little bit of very decent behaviour, for which they should be applauded, quietly. Thanks guys.

Most here know what I'm on about. If you don't, ask, and I may answer some time soon.

H.

HVL,

You are quite correct to point out that, in this thread where we are focused on problems and issues we have ascribed to the editors, overwhelmingly, the editors are doing a fine job in the development and maintenance of h2g2. It has been the observation of many people during the earlier, more acrimonious phase of this discussion that we who are in favor of these changes are ins some way opposed to all that the editors do and all that h2g2 is.

Naturally enough, this prompted suggestions that we should go elsewhere to some hypothetical (and, ironically, unlikely) web service.

My position, of course, is that the problems we are discussing here are fundamental to my ability to participate here. I would suggest that others will inevitably come share my opinion. I expect that it is equally needless for me to say that the outcome of these proposals will govern whether I will stay and attempt to add my efforts to those of other researchers.

I do not pretend that my leaving or staying will have any major effect on the success of failure of h2g2, but I do feel that the implied lack of respect for the value of the contribution of researchers to the guide and the community that supports it, despite protests to the contrary, must ultimately degrade the quality of what the guide is to be. To those who protest otherwise, I guess I am saying. in short, that if the editors say that the researcher is important here, as an individual as well as en mass, then some real proof of individual rights in the community must be forthcoming. ("Oh yeah? Prove it!")

I do not support meritocratic suggestions that have been made by some people here, since any researcher may make a contribution to the guide without ever writing a single article simply by making the community a place in which others enjoy contributing. In the same way, it is conceivable that a researcher who has made tremendous contributions to the guide might be so contentious that the community is seriously harmed.

However, it is important that no penalty should be imposed to which a researcher is not permitted to respond and defend hirself.

I know that there is a major questions as to who is actually in control and who must ultimately be in charge of the direction that h2g2 is encouraged or permitted to grow. There can be no doubt that h2g2 is owned by the BBC and the editors are those whom the BBC has set in charge and hold responsible. To the extent that the editors hold little trust that the community is capable of directing itself in a way that will enhance the value of h2g2 for the BBC, that is the extent that the editors must rule with a heavy hand.

They have a vision for the direction that h2g2 must go to fulfill the promises made as well as the dream they have for the ultimate value and purpose of h2g2. There can also be no doubt that no systemic changes can be made to h2g2 without their cooperation and involvement.

However, there are qualities to the community that can be controlled by the editors only in a suggestive or heavy handed,, negative fashion. These qualities are provided by the individual researchers and the community at large which shape the character of h2g2 from moment to moment, day to day, week to week, and year to year. In that sense, h2g2 is completely the property of the researchers.

With no sense of contribution and, through that contribution, ownership in all that is h2g2, there can be no real encouragement for us to help build h2g2 to what we are beginning to see what it can be.

These proposals go a long way toward establishing a real and fundamental sense in which the researchers are a part of this enterprise and not just people playing in the sand box.

That concept, that I have heard over and over here, that this is 'their sand box', is a real and dangerous sign that those researchers have no fundamental investment in this community and therefore have no real impulse to add to the value of h2g2. For them this is just a fun place to visit but this is definitely not a community in which they feel that they are citizens.

I am hopeful that the editors will opt for the choices that will encourage the participation of citizens in the community they belong to rather than visits to an amusement park where the management is responsible for always providing new 'rides' as the old ones become boring.

Barton

well said barton. it is exactly this "sandbox" attitude that I am talking about, especially within the towers.

While it might not make any difference if you leave, (although I for one hope you don't), there are definately some researchers who matter more than others when it comes to building the site.

we have a number of different communities in this sandbox of ours, and each affects the final shape of the guide.

You have the "isn't this a fun site" type of visitor. these people may not even be members, but it is when they need to respond to something in the threads that they usually join. what keeps them here is the community forums, and the edited guide.

Then you have the "sometimes contributer", who pops up in peer review sometimes, when they see something that they know is wrong, they comment on it, and it improves the edited guide. these people are usually recruited from the ranks of the previous bunch.

You also have the "seldom entries" type of user. this character will write a good entry, but not very often. usually it is written because they need to explain a point that came up in a thread. (This is also an essential use of links in threads, and if the editors could get it so that links within the site are always allowed, this wouldenhance the guide considerably). These people need to not be frightened off, and are usually drawn from the previous two catagories.

Now you are starting to get to the most valuable people on the site. the "active contributer". it doesn't matter if they are a scout, a frequent poster (or author) in peer review, or if they regularly dive into doing entire university projects. if in general we cannot grow the size of this group, the site will die. unfortunately, these people are usually learned, often highly intelligent, and can usually spot which way the wind is blowing before the problem is generally apparent. a few will keep quiteand put up with it. many more will make a token protest, and when things get worse, they will leave quietly. the most valuable bunch (who often end up getting it in the neck in this forum) will usually speak out, and continue fighting for what could be, long after there is any serious hope of things changing. once they leave, they don't come back, and it often prompts their friends either not to join, or to consider leaving as well.

It is absolutely vital that we don't let this last group leave (possibly in a huff). all that needs to be done to keep them is to open your minds and listen to what they have to say, and every once in a while throw them the bone of a token (but guarenteed) improvement. as long as the trend is for the better, they will only leave because real life has got too busy, and when things calm down, they will be back. they are the ones who write most of the guide, and the guide is what attracts new members to join. every time one of these people is driven away, it is a bad thing.

for everyone involved.

let's try and make sure that the type of events that preceded the disappearence of lekz (among others), producing the current bad smell that is sometimes detectable around certain official actions, can't happen again.

and please people in the towers, try not to be heavy handed or obtuse about it.

>Now you are starting to get to the most valuable people on the site. the "active contributer".

I'm hoping that you are the only one with this opinion.
Everyone on this site is valuable, whether they write one entry or none. Remember that forums attached to an edited entry are part of that entry. It's a rare thing to be able to comment on articles in that way, it's not found anywhere else (writing a letter to a magazine about an article doesn't come close), so any comment is as valuable as the entry. That makes a researcher as much a valuable contributer as someone who writes an entry every day.

Hi.

Just to let you know we've printed out the Modest Proposal, the Magna Carta and the Arbiters Scheme for leisurely reading and team-wide comment, and although things are still busy (we are still down one man until Thursday, so this week may remain stretched) we will comment on them as soon as we can. Particularly, the Arbiters Scheme will take longer for us to digest, as it's a lot longer than the other two!

We'll post our comments to the proposal entries themselves when we've come up with them.

"Everyone on this site is valuable, whether they write one entry or none. Remember that forums attached to an edited entry are part of that entry. It's a rare thing to be able to comment on articles in that way, it's not found anywhere else (writing a letter to a magazine about an article doesn't come close), so any comment is as valuable as the entry. That makes a researcher as much a valuable contributer as someone who writes an entry every day."

Everyone has value, as a living, breathing human being, with passions and dislikes, thoughts and ideas, etc., and the value of one is no greater or less than the value of any other.

However, we are talking about the value of contributions to the Guide, not the value of persons in general. These aren't easily quantified, but in some ways, they are very clear. If the ultimate goal of h2g2 is to produce the Guide, then those that make greater contributions to that end are more valuable to this site.

In the case of an article vs. a random poster, the greater contribution is clear. The article will be a work that required much effort from all involved, starting with the author, and it will be the vital spark that generates the conversation. The random poster just writes what they're thinking of after having read the article.

There are many different people who come to this site, and each comes for their own peculiar reasons. However, for the goal the Guide has set out to accomplish, which is more valuable: the guy who comes to play, or the guy who comes to contribute?

The player can be found in the clubs, posting to people's homepages, and wandering around in Ask H2G2. The player might even apply for an Ace position.

The contributor, on the other hand, gets right to work. He probably goes straight to the source, applying for Sub, Scout, or University positions. Articles are produced. Peer Review critiques are provided.

The argument has been provided, time and time again, that the player has a value to the Guide, because that behavior helps attract contributors. However, how can you quantify it? How many contributos does each player attract and keep? The contributor, on the other hand, has a clear and discernable value to the Guide.

And before you respond to contradict me, ask yourself this: What would h2g2 be without players? What would it be like without contributors?

Here's how I answer it:
No players: A library-type atmosphere pervades the site, and it becomes a small enclave of the best and brightest. The Guide goes on to become a great success.
No contributors: The site becomes just another chat room. The Guide withers and dies.

I'm not arguing with what you say, it's just not as clear cut and black and white as that posting sounds.


"The player can be found in the clubs," yes
"posting to people's homepages," yes
"and wandering around in Ask H2G2." yes
"The player might even apply for an Ace position." yes

"The contributor, on the other hand, gets right to work. He probably goes straight to the source, applying for Sub," yes - on waiting list
"Scout, or University positions." yes (uni)
"Articles are produced." yes
"Peer Review critiques are provided." Occasionally.

I know entries are harder work, but I think some infomation in forums is just as important. Some players turn into contributers, me for instance, so I think they are as important for what they might bring when they have settled in and had enough of pubs and clubs.

Me, black and white? I've always considered myself a denizen of the greys. I'm not contradicting what you say, either, and there are some players who turn into contributors... and there are certainly very few contributors who don't indulge in a bit of playtime from time to time.

In many cases, judging the value of a person's contributions is difficult to do. But in many other cases, it is easy to see. And among those who clearly have great value to the Guide, or even great potential value, there are many who wonder why, under the current climate, why they should bother to do so. In other words, what's in it for them? I, for one, have to believe wholeheartedly in the purpose of the Guide, and the management's ability to make it a reality, in order to contribute my time and effort.

I did once. I don't anymore. I'd be inclined to reevaluate that at any time, but I think that some changes are necessary before I can reasonably expect to change my position.

As I said above in #1046:

"I do not support meritocratic suggestions that have been made by some people here, since any researcher may make a contribution to the guide without ever writing a single article simply by making the community a place in which others enjoy contributing."



I think this particular debate over which type of researcher ranks highest serves little purpose. If there were no writers, there could be no guide, If there were no community, there could be no conceivable reason for them to stay and contribute, The synergy of both is what makes this particular enterprise work as well as it has already.

Yes, there are some dead weight party people, just as there are some worthless writers.

Quiet library scholarship may produce an encyclopedia, but it will not produce a guide. Happy-happy-joy-joy and imaginary beer steins may be fun but it doesn't require this kind of facility and it can't make use of it.

Like it or not, most of us who write are getting our jollies in conversation with comparable minds who can appreciate what and how we have written. Most of us don't use our real names so any fame that accrues stops at the virtual walls of this virtual writers' colony, lunatic bin, debating society, and publishing house.

Each of us is ultimately writing for the rest of us and we all want more than merely seeing our words on the web. (Bog knows we don't have to come here for that.)

Part of it is the stamp of approval from the powers that be, so long as the level of achievement is high enough to maintain that cachet, but the rest of it comes from the community, that means all that being a recognized part of such a distinguished group can mean.

Living in an amusement park or, even more so, a sand box is for children. I'm not a rich person, but I could manage to buy an awful lot of sand and I have a yard to pour it in. After that, all I really need do is leave the gate open, turn on the lights, and set up a lemonade stand. How boring will that be by next week?

This place is ever so much more than that. Even the writing, which gives focus, does not begin to explain the real value of h2g2. I think, that the value of this place is that it is a community in which we can see that we have value as well as function and that that quality is reflected in the recognition of those we choose to call our peers.

Because we invest ourselves and our trust in those peers, we expect to be treated as having value as an individual and not as an account.

That is why these proposals are important. That is why the events that led up to the creation of this thread caused the kind furor they caused. And, that is why it didn't just... go away after a few days.

Some of the best minds on h2g2 have spent a tremendous amount of time and effort in perfecting these proposals because they felt that something had to be done *for the community*, for the *soul* of the community. Soon we'll see what effect that time and effor will have. Then, we can figure out what to do next.


Barton

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F77229?thread=143166&post=1340485#p1340485 There are probably more potential volunteers subscribed to this thread than any other. If any of you knows anywhere else where this link could usefully be posted, please copy and paste it there. We need one volunteer, and we need them soon (multiple authors on a space is of course a possibility, but I'm thinking of one person taking overall responsibility for the initial content). Please pass this on to whomever you think may want to have an input... H.

In light of some of the comments it caused, I think that I ought to provide some background as to why I wrote the contents of
http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/FFM55683?thread=127664&skip=1040&show=20#p1337920 and what I meant by them.

There was an awfull lot of comments along the lines of "it's their system, now shut up and go away". Now, despite this being a bad way of saying what is a valid point, it does miss some important facts.

1, not all researchers are equally valuable for the stated aim of creating the guide.

while this may seem a little harsh, it is, never the less, true. this is why I refered to the active researcher as themost valuable people in the guide. No particular active researcher is much more valuable than most of the others, but as a group, they are more prolific for getting an edited guide than any other catagory.

2, people leave.

how they leave and if they come back is dependant on how much sense of community has been built up, how much it is listened to, and generally how inclusive it is. if they enjoy being here, and don't feel the need to sanitise everything that they think before they post it, they are likely to recommend their friends, and when they can, they will come back. If they feel like they have to constantly look over their shoulder, getting censored inconsistently, often for things that appear to be perfectly o.k. anywhere else, they are likely to be dis-chuffed, and tell their friends not to bother comming here. they won't come back either.

3, the number of active researchers is either growing, or the guide is dying.

not a popular thing to say, but if I was only interested in being popular, I would have a normal job, a normal appearance, and whouldn't be willing to say anything even remotely controversial. if the contributers had to have that profile, the guide would probably die anyway, as the whole thing would be about as interesting to read as a telephone directory.

As I tried to make clear in my previous post, and as some people obviously failed to see, every user of this system is important. but the people who are actively writing the guide are much harder to replace, so we should listen to them if they say they are thinking of leaving. we should ask them why, and if they have good reasons, which can be resolved, we should try and get them resolved so that either they don't leave, or they come back.

if the stats here match other places, to get one new active researcher, we need about 20 occasional article writers, to get which we need 400 peer reviewers, to get which we need 8000 drop in users who just post to the odd thread every now and then, to get which we might need as many as 160,000 people who just pop by and look at the site occasionally, never bothering to join and post anything to the site, ever.

even if you make the stats a factor of 4 better than I have seen anywhere else, and make it 5,25,125,625 you still have it being very expensive to replace a prolific poster. and we do appear to be losing them faster than we are getting new ones.

This is not a "my clique is better than your clique" posting. they are ALL absolutely vital to the survival of the guide. but, to get someone to the point of being a prolific poster has cost a lot of time, money, storage space, and other resources. we should not just waste this because we (the editors especially) fail to contact them to find out why they haven't been for a few months.

The community that the bbc say they bought this place for is expensive to develope, and even more expensive to keep.

let's not lose it just because there are a few waves being made.

Skimming through the latest section of this thread, I noticed that Xyroth said:
'...you still have it being very expensive to replace a prolific poster. and we do appear to be losing them faster than we are getting new ones.'

Xyroth, have you any numbers to back up this particular claim?

I spend a lot of time on Peer Review, and while some of the regular contributors there are fairly long-standing members like Ormondroyd and Gnomon, there are others like Witty Ditty, Caper Plip and Whisky who are a lot newer, and producing some really excellent entries. So the supply of new contributors seems to me to be quite healthy. On the other hand, the only 'prolific' researcher I know of who has voluntarily stopped writing serious entries for the guide is Colonel Sellars. Including people who make a lot of useful comments on Peer Review, but don't submit many entries of their own, then Barton would bring the total I know of to two.

I'm a little concerned that your claim might end up as one of those 'facts' believed by many people, which is actually based on little or no evidence.

Azara

Modest Proposal is now at Version 1.2, thanks to comments from the Editors, which you can read here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F75811?thread=143270&post=1342648#p1342648 Any further comments? Anyone? H.

azara, you ask for figures, but the people to ask for that is the editors, and they have yet to produce any (that I can find) despite being asked repeatedly on this thread.

As regards naming names, I refuse to do it.

however, I get notified about every thread from peer review, the writing workshops, etc, and visit and comment on those where I can contribute. The perception is (to me at least) that most entries now are by new authors. while it is a good thing that new authors are actually bothering to write, the problem is that this leaves with a lot of people (the usual suspects) who just don't seem to be writing much anymore. Given the tendancy for new writers to get scared off by the critical nature of peer review, this is definately a long term problem.

on another note, although I don't have any problem with the content of "a modest proposal", the entry itself definately has a smell of "what are they all winging about, and why don't they shut up".

Considering the fact that the entry mentions trying to quiet the small but vocal minority, this is not the tone to take.

as to the fact that this thread is in the many hundreds of posts, most of the observant here will spot that it has significantly changed from being a troll fest on both sides to being mainly constructive.

As most of the people here are the same ones who are in most of the libertarian / authoritarian debates, there is a tendency for excesses to get brought up here. hence iffy moderation gets talked about, as does perceived editorial bias (which real or not is still perceived, and thus needs handling). This forum has hopefully become a catch-all for lots of issues relating to how this site is run, and hopefully, it keeps the disputed points from leaking all over the rest of the site as well.

The intelligence thread leaked all over the site. the same thing happening now would hopefully mainly be confined to this forum, and the forum where it happened.

The only reason that this thread is still active is that the site management style is changing, and thus new (and also persistant) problems keep being raised. and we can hope, dealt with properly.

xyroth - couldn't let this pass:

>on another note, although I don't have any problem with the content of "a modest proposal", the entry itself definately has a smell of "what are they all winging about, and why don't they shut up".

The tone I intended was rather this: "here's the tiniest, tiniest thing the editors *could* do to show a willingness to change, to listen, to attempt to act more professionally. Here is a *start* that we could hope they make." If MP is taken up, I hope and expect it not to end there. But I looked at the other proposals and saw that they were, IMO, *too* far reaching, *too* much change, and therefore far, far too easy to reject out of hand. My specific aim with MP was to come up with something so simple and inoffensive that it would be difficult to reject, but which could have a positive effect. I note that despite the fact that it is a procedure, rather than a rule, the Editors very first comment on it makes reference to the fact that they'd have to clear it by the Legal department, thus giving themselves an easy out if they decide to reject it. That would be specious, of course, but they've laid the groundwork.

>Considering the fact that the entry mentions trying to quiet the small but vocal minority, this is not the tone to take.

This was merely an observation, by me, a member of the SBVM, that if this proposal were to be adopted we might actually have something to be happy about. It may even quiet us down while we regroup for the next stage. It is absolutely not intended to quiet us down specifically. The tone was intentionally light - the SBVM tries not to take itself *too* seriously. But I don't imagine for a second that if MP is adopted that anything will end there. It will merely signal a welcome willingness on the part of the Editors to listen, and change. Surely a desirable outcome?

H.

There is at least one ACE (a VERY hardworking one at that) who has left over this issue - androyd.