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

Sorry if this has been discussed in another thread, but I haven't time to check the other conversations as I'm in the middle of exam revision and so I shouldn't really be here at all.

Anyway my point:
I think the updater should be involved from the second it is recommended for update, so they can act as a sort of host for the conversation on the topic.

Hmmm, let me make it clearer. When the thread is created in the update place the updater is informed, automatically subscribed to the thread, and given an duplicate of the entry to use for the update. Now as I see it the updater should act as effectively a researcher/subeditor cross so they will use the thread to ask for info and ask for clarification of any info provided, they will then have to check the info(if they feel it needs checking) as well as possibly trying to find out some info for themselves, if possible.
Once they have all the extra/up to date info they think the entry requires they will have to work it into the entry in a way that keeps the flow and stays within the editorial guidelines.

Is this a good way for it to work do you think?

Researcher PSG

Hi PSG,

I think you are asking a lot of the updater. Up to now, a few brave souls have been doing the updating voluntarily, but it has been difficult for them to keep up with the huge backlog of entries requiring updating. Updaters are volunteers and there will be very few of them compared to the large volume of entries needing an update, so we have to consider how much time they really will have to make changes. Backlog problems aside, it would not be the best idea to leave the Updater do all the updating. The topic might be 17th Century French Art, and no updater might know anything about that subject, so the new edition of the entry might not be very accurate.

I think the best thing (sorry, I am repeating myself now, apologies) is that, if a researcher wants something changed, that they do the updating themselves. They obviously know more than the updater (or have more motivation to see the article changed), otherwise they would not ask for the article to be changed in the first place.

Most of the volunteers around here (all?)- Sub-Eds, Scouts, etc.
are not required to have a deep knowledge of the entries - they are more useful in keeping the whole process going. If we get a small number of people bogged down in checking facts for entries we will miss out on the value they can add in making sure that the revised entry flows well, validating the formatting, archiving older entries and checking links etc.

Woodpigeon

I suppose I see your point it is alot to ask, and I suppose it would be better for people to choose what they update, based on what they know about.

However, I do feel it is VERY important to have some people involved in getting the community to provide update information and also keeping the entries bang up to date (it's part of DNA's vision). And to be frank I don't think 17th century paintings are going to change (apart from possibly how much they sell for) and updates are more likely to be associated with entries on places, or events (where you can find/check details online) and any other subjects in need of an update the updater would get clues from conversations and postings to the update thread.

And putting my money where my mouth is (so to speak) I would be prepared to be an updater (having been a sub). And about the backlog, no one said it would happen overnight, but once update is more regular the more up to date the guide will be, and a backlog won't go away it will just get worse.

Researcher PSG

Hi there,

generally speaking, the UpVols seem to do two tasks - firstly, sort of scouting the Guide and the UN page in particular for entries worth updating, while keeping the conversations going. This task would be similar to a Scout's job.

The second task would be to see that the actual update is done. The least bureaucratic would be if the updater got the editing rights for the entry and did it him/herself. Similar to a Sub's job... I would think that for most cases it would be a matter of cut-and-paste of parts of the conversations into the entry, nothing more. It depends on the quality of the recommendation, though; it would be an idea if update recommendations could be rejected when way too un-specific. Perhaps Mikey and JimiX could say something about this, as they have some experience with updating.

SchrEck Inc.

Your right SchrEck, but if I could I would go the extra couple of metres and have a look around to see what I could find out (if I had time of course), but I think the basic job should be as you say for the updater. However I think an early involvement in the discussion would be useful.

Changing subject slightly, I've been thinking about what the updaters will be working on and it seems to me the updaters appear to be dealing with 2 types of entry

1) An entry that is comprehensive, but has to be updated due to new information

2) Entries that are not as comprehensive as they could or should be.

Maybe they should have a more formal seperation in the process, e.g. like having the update forum for new info being added to old entries, and a replacement forum where entries that are just not comprehensive enough can be highlighted. People can then be allowed to offer to write a better version and/or post little bits of extra info about the highlighted entry.

Just a thought.

Researcher PSG

Lot's of good ideas and clarifications to the proposal being suggested here.

I think I generally agree with Woodpigeon. If someone is going to click on the 'update' button, it will generally be because they can see what needs to be added/changed not because they think it's a crap entry and someone else should update it.

Combining a few ideas here, how about that the person who clicks the button gets given a copy of the entry to work with. They then make any changes/revisions they see fit, and when they are finished click 'update'. This button then sends the entry to a review forum (either Peer Review or a new one) where the community gets to comment on the changes and make suggestions. Once this process is over, the entry gets sent either to a subeditor, one of the new volunteers, or straight to the in-house team, who just have to 'check' the updates for spelling/grammar/guideml like usual. The entry then replaces the existing one (keeping the number), with the old version going... somewhere (see other thread for discussion on this).

I think this'd work because it closely emulates the existing processes, and also gives the person recommending the entry to be updated the chance to do make the changes themself first. They also get the chance to work on the entry before sending it to the review forum, so that people don't start commenting whilst they're only halfway through.

Once the button has been clicked by one researcher the button should disappear so that you don't get two people working on it at once.

Only the in-house team can obtain editing rights for an entry once it's in the Edited Guide.

So currently, we're banging out the code on a test page and then emailing it back to the towers for an update.

Hopefully, if Updating is a recognized scheme the Updaters will be able to work directly on the Edited Entry, but if I understood Chris correctly, the BBC is loathe to do this...

As far as the actual work - we're trolling forum postings and checking other entries in the Guide as well for any nuggets of content. (though if somebody's page is marked 'Not for Review' I don't know what we'd do)

It's a bit more time-consuming than a regular Sub-edit, but for the most part the coding and grammar will already be correct since it's an Edited Entry and we're just adding to that. So I guess there is a lot more researching and compiling than editing...

But would it be good to let the person recommending the update do the researching and compiling? That's the issue that's being tackled here...

I don't get what you say about the BBC... How's it different to letting a sub work on a copy of the entry, or just copying and pasting the guideml into a new entry.

Incidentally I remember a discussion with someone in Peer Review over the time travel entry, where he wanted to update it and I suggested creating a new copy of the page and adding the bits he wanted to include, then re-submitting it to PR.

Also whilst I was subbing the original scouted entry, I had to merge it with the existing entry (effectively doing an update).

Ideally, the Researcher requesting the update will have done the research to do the update. But I would still check to make sure that nothing important got left out...

As far as editing Edited Entries. We can work in copies, but there isn't a system in place for volunteers to make physical changes to Edited Entries as far as I know...

I completely agree that directly modifying an existing guide entry has to be controlled by a small number of people. That's a constraint we can live with. I also think that the new version of the entry should be formatted in another guide entry, and when everybody is happy with this new version, the new entry is copied over to the edited entry by an Updater, a Subeditor, an Italic, or whoever, as part of a systematic process.

I disagree that getting the Volunteer Updater to do all the updates would be less bureaucratic. What could be easier than a researcher doing the changes himself or herself? It's pure self-service, with only other people getting involved when the revised article is ready for review.

The point of the two different types of entries is merited however. Small changes might need a fast path update mechanism, and this might be handled by an Updater. I wouldn't have a problem with this.

Frankie, The point on a locking button is well made - if you are going to make a change, then nobody should have access until you have either completed the update, or you have given up. What if somebody takes it upon themselves to make a change, then loses interest or is knocked over by a bus and doesn't bother to free up the article? Maybe there needs to be a time limit for making changes - a week or two.

Great points everybody.

Woodpigeon

Oh I completely agree with the working with copies thing, that's what I was suggesting...

About the 'locking button', I agree you'd need some kind of timelimit to stop entries being tied up for updates for too long.

About the small/major changes, perhaps there could be an option for the updater (ie. person who clicked to do the updates) to send the entry straight to the volunteers/subs/italics, if it's only a small change (e.g typo/single sentance).

Or should all updates be forced to go through a review forum?

--

I'd definately go along with Woodpigeons points though. Whilst what Jimi X and co do is great, it'd be hard to say that all the volunteers should have to do this. As a sub I'd firmly say that we should only be editing for style/grammar/guideml and not having to go off and research the content - that's what PR's for after all. Best to leave content to the wider community who are knowledgeable about the subject. What's currently done by the update towers could in future be done by anyone who's interested enough in that particular entry. - I'd love to be in charge of updating the newspapers entry for example.

Hello, me again
Sorry but I'm a so-in-so for simplification and clarification:

So basically what the ideal would be is this (as I see it from the postings):

For I can do a better entry on this than this:
How about, you have the oportunity on any edited entry to press a button so you get a duplicate of the current edited entry, and you have to put a posting in a major updates forum asking for any people who want to add any points to the entry to post them (a bit like you have to do the first peer review posting). And any person who presses the button after that gets told someone is working on it already and gets a link to the major update forum. But this ability to create an alternative newer version only lasts for a set amount of time.

For the little update:
A new special form of scout goes around looking for entries about changing things (e.g. cities, events, tv programs, etc) that are a bit on the old side information wise and send them to a new info required forum, where people get to post new information.

An extra good idea would be a 5 newest requests for information bit on the front page.

What do you think, is that about the mark everyones aiming at?

Researcher PSG

I would say for the first one you should be allowed to take some time working on the updated (duplicate) of the entry before having to submit it to the review forum so that other people don't start commenting immidietly. (This is what should be time-restricted).

Not sure about your distinction between big and little updates. What you've picked up on really are the two different ways that the whole updating thing can be approached from. The second is what's in Anna's proposal, the first is (roughly) what Woodpigeon's proposing...

Sorry, it wasn't very clear I'm a bit haressed I have a test first thing in the morning.

Right, the distinction between the first and the second:

The first is not really an update (although it may have parts that are out of date), it's more the fact someone thinks the entry isn't comprehensive or good enough and they want a crack at doing a better version.

The second is an update because it is purely doing small corrections and adding new bits of info to bring an entry up to date. A more small scale enterprise.

It's just how I have mentally seperated the two tasks, and I didn't mean the first type should be reviewed straight away I meant they should have to start a conversation where people can offer extra info, the review would come when they are finished as normal (The lack of clarity due to exam stress).

I just thought if you spilt what people want to improve and what needs to be brought up to date, it might make defining the methods easier.

Hope thats better.

Researcher PSG

Interesting distinction. I think one process could cover both though, and often you might want to do both at the same time (add to and update an entry).

Oh and good luck for the exams.

Your probably right.

Thanks, just hope the revision worked

Researcher PSG

Hi PSG - Best of luck!

I agree that maybe we just need one process - perhaps all thats required is for "Update Scouts" to be a

b****r, premature post - apologies.


Hi PSG - Best of luck!

I agree that maybe we could do with one process - perhaps all thats required is for "Update Scouts" to be alert for small-scale changes, and get them into the edited guide without much ado.

Oh yes, and the updating researcher should have a section where they can explain what updates they have made.

Woodpigeon

It's a bit late to do it tonight, but does anybody think it'd be a good idea to write up all the different suggestions and conclusions from these threads into an entry? (kinda in response to the proposal). It might make things easier to read.

If so, anyone wanna give a hand?

Just me, but I'm not sure if its necessary. Maybe Anna already has a picture of our alternative suggestions?

Anna's the editor of the original entry after all .