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

Entry: First Impressions... - A738254
Author: lilithcookie - U192100

First, I have absolutely no illusions that this will ever appear officially in THE GUIDE, however, I think it deserves some discussion anyways.

So here it is... respectfully submitted for your serious consideration and if the suggestions are as helpful as they were the last time, I'm sure it will turn into a piece well worth somebody's publishing interest.

So thanks very much for your time.

Some first reactions:

I understand the frustration that writing within the guidelines can cause but there are some very good, well written entries being created under them. I come across a great many 'My tour of xxxx', 'my opinions (disguised as a travel guide)' type articles when searching the internet for information and I like the fact that this is somewhere where you can read more balanced, factual pieces.

Add to that the fact that its only the edited version of the guide that the guidelines apply to. We have complete freedom (well, within the houserules) to write what we please if we're not submitting to the edited version.

I didn't understand what you were getting at in the last sentence. Are you implying that non edited guide entries may be deleted from this site at some point?

Hi Cookie,

Can I first say that I was very impressed with your previous guide entry on table dancing? I didn't feel I could usefully add much to what Bossell said, and I thought that the strength of what you wrote was in how you wrote it, which would be difficult to translate to the guide without losing all that was good about it in the first place - a strong sense of vibrance and authorial voice which the guide doesn't really allow for.

My main response to your article is to say that I think some people get too hung up on the whole "edited guide" thing, and I think it is mostly newer people who do this - and the way the site is introduced adds to this impression.

But this site is about much more than just the edited guide - that's the project around which a whole community has grown up. Many researchers don't write much for the edited guide (I've had one entry accepted, I've been around for about 9 months, and they still let me be a scout...!), but instead read the work of others, or join in debates and discussions, or other random stuff.

The other bits of this site are just as valid. I've had an entry of mine on long distance relationships festering away for ages through lack of time to do much with it, but it's got a fair amount of attention anyway. Also, the H2G2 post (link from the front page) is published on Thursdays and would be ideal for the sort of material that you cleary want to (and are cleary very able to) write. They're always looking for more articles, and would, I'm sure, be glad to hear from you. Some of these other endeavours have been set by people with very similar views to yours about the guide, or who think that their own writing talents are not best suited by the restrictiveness of the guide rules.

The Post, or the Alternative guide which is (I think) published in the post, or the various creative writing forums (fora?) are not poor relations or second class, but are in every respect as valid as the edited guide, which is attempting to be an online encyclopeadia of sorts, and so requires writing in a certain style. I don't know how many guide entries you've read, but it is possible to get a distinctive voice across - I like to think I managed it in "How to be a Philosopher"! But the edited guide rules for writing are not, nor intended to be, the rules for good writing generally, for precisely the reasons you give.

My own view is that the guide guidelines (if you will) should remain more or less the same, but that the focus of the introductary bit of the site should shift a little away from the guide to the other things to do.

A better place for this discussion would be "Ask the H2G2 community", but I wanted to respond here.


Best wishes

Otto

Actually I was speculating that with the next merger... whenever that happens... the current style might become obsolete for the reasons I stated. Or the whole community might just get trashed because it doesn't fit somebody's business model which can happen no matter what style is acceptable but it's probably more likely if the style is part of a failed business model.

This sort of community might be an endangered species simply because it doesn't generate revenue like regular business stuff and with the euphoria of high tech sort of crashing worldwide it's probably something to be concerned about although there's very little you or me can do about.

So maybe my whole idea just sucks anyways because whatever's going to happen is going to happen for reasons other than guide entry styles but I thought it was important to mention anyways.

Thanks Otto. I really appreciate your feedback, especially the stuff about alternative foras... I think.

(Gawd why is it you got to be a latin scholar at these kind of places?)

Anyways I guess my main problem then is that the site is so huge and confusing that a newbee like me just doesn't know where to put stuff mostly. So if any powers that be or whoever are reading this they might consider a redesign that might put emphasis where it needs to go to make the site go better. Of course that probably means some oldbees will get uptight or whatever because they're used to it the way is probably although I heard that something major happened when the BBC took over so maybe that's the problem.

It's hopeless because I know when I read an article in the local paper then go to their website to get it linked to something I'm doing on the web it sometimes takes close to forever to find it and sometimes it's never found so there's probably something intrinsic about this way of publishing stuff that just makes it hard to get a handle on things. So then I've got to figure out how to live with it or just blow it off or whatever.

Anyways thanks again for the kind words and the even kinder insights. That really helps ya know?

Hi lilithcookie, I thought that might be what you meant.

I think this place is in about the most secure place it could be with the BBC (in a UK context). I know most public sector organisations are expressing their finances in more private sector orientated terms but, in the main, it is a contrived paper exercise. (These are business plans Jim, but not as we know them.) I really don't think generation of revenue matters that much. The BBC is likely to remain substantially tax funded as long as it involves sufficient numbers of the (UK) public. It is audience numbers that matter to it.

My worry for the guide under the BBC is that their main interest in this site is the community aspect (a virtual audience), not the guide. My hope is that they realise that having the guide is what gives the place a purpose and coherence and is what makes it different from other web sites. If they do they may in fact be more likely to lift unpopular guideline restrictions than to impose them. Not because of the reasons you give for doing so but as a sort of dumbing down. (As in; quality of writing doesn't matter just don't put anyone off registering here. I don't mean that I think only third person entries are quality entries.)

I suspect you are right that 'whatever's going to happen is going to happen for reasons other than guide entry styles'. It is worth discussing but I think it is still very early days for us with the BBC. I started a thread some time ago asking what the BBC's intentions with the site were. I interpreted the answers as meaning' they don't know', we were an unplanned, unexpected acquisition and they will work out what to do with us later. In the public sector later can mean a lot later. Which is *not* always a bad thing.

Oh, hi there lilithcookie

The point in the writing guidelines is to maintain at least a minimum of common style throughout the edited part of the Guide. Edited entries are meant to last but everybody knows that they can't be up to date forever. Thus, the requirement for updating arises. Third person was chosen because you cannot possibly add something to an existing entry if it is written in first person.

However, you *can* express opinion in an EG entry:
One way is to choose a title like 'Gravity - a personal experience'. Provided that the Editors can be convinced that the subject matter is relevant to a reasonable number of people. 'My experience of cancer' and 'Living with a cyst in my brain' are some examples that I can remember. On the other side, an entry about 'My holidays on Bosselhiti, sunshine and all ' *won't* make it into the Edited Guide.
No question, there *is* excellent 'first person/opinion' writing out there. But the EG is restricted to something else.


The second possibility is to
a) write the skeleton of an entry, in third person, and explain the subject matter from an objective point of view;
b) insert *sections* like 'A researcher's experience' and quote opinions etc. there. Many of the 'Talking Point' entries are written this way.

Another advantage of having the guidelines in the way they are is to 'protect' the EG from pieces like 'Why my town is the most boring place on the Planet'. Without the requirement for objectivity and factuality, there would be much discussion and fighting over inclusion of the yarn.

Of course, you can't write an article without having opinion in it. The mere fact that you *write* about a subject in the first place already expresses that you either like or hate it and thus find it's worth writing about it. The guidelines are there to draw a line somewhere in between.

I'm wavering a little on this myself. Regardless of which, you'd be better off posting this to <./>Feedback-Community</.> or <./>Feedback-Editorial</.> - perhaps one of the scouts could move this thread there?

I'm happy to do that. Do I have a seconder?

I'd say the Community corner would be appropriate.

* takes note for the big eMail *

I knew it was already in the wrong place Lucinda when I posted it which sort of says a lot all by itself doesn't it? So if somebody wants to move it and knows where and how I'm ok with that I guess.

I can see your points too Bossel. It's just sort of a problem with what I've done so far I think. Like I don't want to overcook it if it's done already just to meet somebody's guide guidelines, however useful or practical or whatever they might be. Like it may not really be guide material anyways. The concept's cool I'm sure but that doesn't mean it's for everybody or everything.

And 3rd person is ok too I guess. I mean it's after all the style of Caesar's Gallic Wars right? And that paragon of objectivity has stood the test of time. Of course the main reason it's a classic I think is because it's simple enough for first and second year latin students who can't quite grasp the subjectivity of Cicero or Virgil right?

My point being that just because something is written in the 1st person doesn't mean it isn't objective or even a potential classic. And if somebody decides to edit it later it just means they've got to keep everybody's annotations straight which they should do anyways don't you think? Otherwise you end up with the Pentatuch or something where everyone's trying to guess who added what to it when and the only clue really is what God calls himself when he 'thus saith' ok?

So just imagine what would happen if they had to deduce what part of Dancing on Tables was a revelation of the Divine Lilith and what was done by the Venerable Bossel... inspired of course.

The point in Peer Review is that it remains the original researcher's piece (in terms of authorship, not copyright!) unless they choose to give credits for some major/important/whatever contribution.

I'm happy that most entries around here don't get as large as the Pentateuch (although I happen to know where to find a 28-entry piece of babble on some weird subject)

Hmmm... first it looks like nobody wanted to move this and... second... since this only has 12 entries it's probably not the weird subject you know about.

And then maybe as some sort of final note... this topic is obviously not of interest to anybody here other than you and me so let's just drop it and try something else ok? Maybe something more anglophile huh?

Did you know Ghandi thought western civilization would be a good idea?

Re First/Second: Not quite! This thread has been moved a couple of weeks ago but only the new DNA software version writes an automatic message on a thread that has moved. Now that it's hanging off the entry, there aren't many chances for it to be found, apart from the casual passer-by.

Have you seen F48874?thread=183517 (How to comment in Peer Review)? It deals with the commentors in PR but there *is* also something under way to collect all aspects of PeerReviewology and yours is covering the researcher's part

Oh, I didn't know that Ghandi could ever have erred

Ghandi didn't error... he was making a joke ok?

Sometimes I'm a bit short of electrons to move around between those grey cells