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

Anna,

I just want to present my viewpoint again (in the proper forum this time):-

Let's say a researcher decides to write a completely new entry based on the original edited entry. He/she copies the original GuideML over to a new entry for starters. Then he/she sets to work, adding in more information, reading the forum comments and generally expanding the topic. To finish, the researcher reformats the entry in GuideML, so that the net effect is a entry ready for inclusion in the Edited Guide with minimal changes. How would this be dealt with?

I am only trying to conceive of an approach which gives Updaters a minimum amount of work to do, and puts the onus on us researchers to do the work, if we feel strongly that an entry needs to be updated. It's far too easy for someone to suggest that a guide entry be changed when they won't be part of the solution themselves. Also, if we put the job of updating completely on the updaters, the process might be terribly slow (I am here long enough to remember how the original Peer Review forums used to work ).

Woodpigeon

Spin-off question: Where's a point that the new/updated entry needs to go through PR because it's so much more than a mere update?

I mean turning the Liver entry (A134920) into a 1,500 word affair is not really a problem information-wise (just a lot of work). Would a 1.5k-word version be an update or a new entry?

It'd go through the same subbing and moderation as a "new entry", but it'd still be an update... For all we know, there could be hundreds of pages pointing to it as the definitive definition of "Liver", and the new version ought to be going into the same A-number as the original, maintaining all those (notional) external links...

A point of interest might be that when I decided to write an entry on Alcohol not that long ago to replace the mediocre one that was already there (about one para), it was referred to the Update Towers at first, but then moved back to PR and the normal subbing system after it was decided that the new entry was less of an update than a complete re-write.

This only really applies in cases where entries by the Old Writing Team are being replaced, but it might be worth bearing in mind...

related to your experience with the alcohol entry, when I started the intelligence project, the existing entry about artificial intelligence was accurate, but completely incompatable with the new stuff.

When I went to the update center to find out how I could do anything about splitting and refocusing the entry, I was completely unable to get an answer about how I can update it to be compatable.

If it was possible to put updates through the peer review process, then this helps, but it doesn't solve the problem of updates that need to work with university projects.

This, and the writting workshop discussion are all part of the same poblem.

for a range of situations, the current system doesn't work properly.

people without confidence won't submit their first entry into peer review, the peer review/flea market link is starting to fail due to changes in peer review, university entries cannot get sufficient review, etc.

We need a larger scale review of how the system works, so that good entries that are not finished can be updated.

The whole lot need a refocusing, to see what we can do to improve the way the whole system works.

Cor, with all this reviewing and evaulating, h2g2 is become as beauracratic as the BBC itself... - Definately worth doing though.

I'd say that rewrites would be alocated to Updaters or possibly other researchers as usual, then sent through PR/WW.

-Spike A.

Interesting idea. How would they be allocated? How would the entries to update be chosen?

The arguments outlined so far are summarised at A760402 - "A Response to the Updating System Proposal"

[Sorry: yet more to read]

Since there is such a lot of discussion on this subject, I have decided to try and create a description of a complete working system at A763418.

I know this just creates more to read, but if you read through this and point out any errors or omissions, I will try and incorporate them into the system, or incorporate an explanation of why they are not necessary. In this way, we can know that we are moving toward a solution.

I look forward to hearing your constructive criticisms,
[IMSoP]

Hi Everyone,

Sorry I've let this discussion slip over a number of weeks. I've now read all discussions here relating to the proposed updating scheme and I've responded in the forums of entry A760402 (an excellent entry summarising the themes raised here, put together by Frankie Roberto). It would be great to see you there and hear your thoughts on the next proposal.

Thanks
Anna