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

... h2 needs to get the mechanisms for it right.

Some authors have unique styles or approaches to their subjects which make their entries more than just a source of data. Updating these causes problems. For the sake of a few additional facts an imaginatively written piece could be superceded by an up to date but less interesting/well written one. The guide would lose character if that were to happen, more so if those original authors found less incentive to write given this possibility.

There seem to be different types of updating to consider; where a complete rewrite is warranted, where some added facts or links would be useful, where time has moved on and a further entry from a different perspective is needed but the original still stands, ......

It's difficult to think of one mechanism for updating, reviewing and crediting authors, editors and updaters that fits these different types.

I think we need more than one update system; nominations for rewrite, a way of adding an 'Further Information' section to existing entries, and an easy way to link existing entries to new entries on the same subject.

to name just three ...

I think this highlights a very important factor. On the Front Page you are urged to "discover how to contribute your unconventional wisdom to the Guide". The emphasis on the personal angle is very much to the point. Otherwise the Guide becomes merely an encyclopedia.

Yet although the author retains control during Peer Review, once the entry is Recommended s/he loses control to a greater or lesser extent. What has been submitted is then used, as we are told in the congratulatory email, not as the entry but as "the basis for an entry". As it says on the House Rules page, "anything you create on h2g2 is done under the condition that you grant us a non-exclusive licence to distribute and edit the material in any way that we want". And the BBC Ts&Cs requires you to allow the BBC to "modify and adapt".

So although it starts off as your wisdom it could become in due course something different. If you are not prepared to accept that possibility it's probably best not to submit your wisdom for inclusion in the Edited Guide.

The Editors will surely do their best to refer back to the original author, but this can be time-consuming and impractical. Even the greatest film directors don't always get final cut, and the finished product can turn out to be very different from what they wanted.

It's a factor to be aware of *before* you take the decision to submit for review, so that it doesn't cause any problems for you later. Maybe that's why we now have a 'Not for Review' option.

We already have a way of adding Further Information to existing entries via the forum system. In fact, if I'm not too mistaken the forums were designed for this purpose.

I don't know if anyone expected that we were going to use them for virtual parties, and all of the other community aspects that we have today...

Bels I agree that that is a factor to beware of before submitting to the edited guide.

The entries I've most enjoyed reading here are ones where the author has put a lot of effort into style or into taking an unusual approach. How many of those authors would take as much interest in writing for h2 if it were an encyclopedia type guide. How many would write 'Not for Review' entries. I don't know, maybe all of them. But, as you pointed out, the Front Page encourages the personal angle, which suggests that someone thinks that it is a factor in motivating writers.

A fully fledged 'Alternate Guide' might be the answer. The present one doesn't get much official promotion.

"I don't know if anyone expected that we were going to use them for virtual parties, and all of the other community aspects that we have today..." When I joined two years ago I had the impression that topic drift was fairly frowned upon - I can't recall any recent references to it however. There used to be discussions about threadiquette.

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