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

> Hi Anna,

> A superb piece of work. Very comprehensive, and well done to
> everybody who contributed ideas. This is something I very much
> support.

> 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

That's a good point about putting the onus on a keen Researcher - and the whole process taking far too long. How about if, like Peer Review, an author proposes an entry to be updated, does as you say - pasting the old entry into a new one and then when it's there for all to see in the Peer Review-like update arena, more facts and clearer ways of putting it can be suggested by the Community. It would be a matter of pride to make the entry as definitive as possible.

Hi Anna,

I would be fully in support of this, but there would also need to be a fast-track mechanism for minor updates, where the content of the original entry stays largely intact, but needs to be updated or corrected where a small mistake has been pointed out.

Thanks for getting back to me!

Woodpigeon

I agree with a lot of Woodpigeon's concerns. I think if we're going to have an update system it should be able to deal with a large number of very minor updates (such as a link to an Entry which has been recently added to the edited guide) as well as a smaller number of more thorough updates.

As we've just seen a discussion about whether or not to remove WW, there's also the question over whether a NEW review forum would attract enough people to reach the critical mass to be useful. Perhaps it would be worth considering sending the entries which are considerably updated (or need it) to PR instead? You're still peer reviewing aren't you?

Hi Frankie,

Yes, I don't see why major updates could not be processed through Peer Review. It's the "central processing hub", after all, and it's Peer Review that gets the eyeballs. Maybe all would be required is a prominently placed "update" flag against the entry.



Woodpigeon

It's definately an idea I think.

I also agree with you about giving people who nominate an entry to be updated to do the updates rather than putting the onus on a volunteer group...

I've tried to summarise the main ideas and arguments put forward on this forum at A760402. Please feel free to look it over and comment!

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