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

I suggest there should be some way that the original author has a (strong) say in what is changes in hir entry (provided that s/he is still active on h2).

Especially with entries which are factual but at the same time based on personal experiences and views. Say, we have an entry on rap music. It generally paints that style of music in a nice way because the original author likes rap. Now, someone comes along who thinks that rap is not so nice and decides the entry needs an update. S/he produces an update with some new/updated facts but also changes the 'feeling' of the entry to more or less explicitly state that rap music is for loosers/criminals only (just for the sake of the argument).

While the original author should be happy with the factual bits s/he would probably not like the 'feel' of the other chnages. Now, which version is to be taken as the edited one?
Should the updater and the author have to come to an agreement? Does the author's view prevail? Has the author to assent to any change? Is the author going to be asked to sanction the changes?

I, personally, feel that the author ought to be asked and that hir view should have more weight than the updater's. It's the author's work and if the updater's so unhaappy with the 'feel' of the current entry s/he should go and write something along the lines of "Rap music and social difficulties/crime" (to stay within the example).

I see your point, but h2g2 is a collaborative evolving Guide, no one can claim ownership of topics. The first author has always got their original copy...

Tube,
You have raised a *very* good point, which I think was discussed a few weeks ago, but needs another airing again. The suggestion then was that a message be dropped into the user space of the original author before anyone tries editing something - its only manners really. Maybe the author always get first say on editing their own articles, either through an email sent directly to them, and they can then decide by reply whether they are happy to see the original article being edited? Also, if the original author has "left the building", maybe there should be a time limit by which they are expected to respond?

Finally, it gets a bit complicated if the entry is undergoing further revisions. Does the original author keep on getting asked, or should the more recent updaters be the only people asked?

Excellent point.

Woodpigeon

Authors should be subscribed to their own entries (there's a feature-request to do this automatically on the to-do list), so they should be notified of the 'calling card', and can then get involved as they feel appropriate.

Ideally, entries should be balanced, and I would hope that someone who tried to submit a 'rap is crap' update to the update forum would get the same response that someone who submitted a brand new 'rap is crap' entry to Peer Review. So I don't think these balance problems are really an issue: the only changes will be remove bias where it has slipped through the net (as in some older entries).

But the principle of the objection is valid. To choose a concrete example, I have an entry on gender-neutral pronouns, and I took a design decision to start off with a case study using sie/hir, then some examples of usage, and then some alternatives. An updater might decide that some different format would be appropriate, and change that appropriately, and certainly I can imagine being somewhat narked as a result.

That's not to say that I wouldn't be OK with it if the updating researcher could provide a decent reason. For example, if the attached forums were alive with the sound of people looking confused and complaining about the format, then that'd be fine. but if it was just this particular researcher's gut feeling, I'd be less happy.

I think we need to aim for the principle of conservatism. Don't change more than you have to. It would be really silly if the gender-neutral pronouns entry started off as case-study then examples then alternatives, and then was updated to use a different case-study (entailing changing all the examples), and then updated to have all the alternatives first, and then examples using a mixture of the alternatives, and so on.

That's in everyone's interest: not only will the author's work not be mutilated by the first updater, but the first updater's work won't be mutilated by the second updater. Put another way, deon't second-guess the decisions made in the previous outing in a review forum unless you have good reason to suppose that it was the wrong decision. Like comments in the forums, for example.

-Martin

I don't think this will be a real problem - it will be down to the updaters (working as subs and scouts) to eliminate any kind of malicious update.

But I think Anna's point is a good one. You can't be too precious about entries on h2g2. Plus some entries have lots of credited authors (which will get longer after people are added to the list for doing update work).

Sure no-one can claim a certain topic as Anna suggested. But there might as well be a number of entries all talking about different aspects of a topic.

Yeah but you can't replace an Edited entry with three different updated versions...

But you can complement an edited entry, which might be more sensible than expanding an existing one ad infinitum.

I think I'd prefer that the entry was split into different pages if this was going to happen. We shouldn't have entries with the same titles.

Some big updates could always be turned into Uni projects.

So, suppose I see an entry on, say Country Music, and I think "but this entry doesn't talk about Fred Richardson, surely the best country artist of all time". What I *should* do is create a *new* entry on Fred Richardson, and then *update* the entry on Country Music so that it *links* to the entry on Fred Richardson in *addition* to what's already there. That'd be better than updating the Country Music entry with a brand new section dedicated to Fred Richardson.

That's another good principle, I think: wherever possible create a new entry rather than adding a large new section to an existing entry.

-Martin

Makes sense, although there will probably be articles which need to change regularly, such as rap music, or Bluetooth, or "why it makes sense to invest in dot coms" which might make it necessary to overhaul the article on a fairly regular basis because the original article has become obsolete due to the passage of time.

Yeah, having the update system doesn't mean you should stop writing new entries and should just update entries with lots of new information indead.

When there's a lot of new information, especially about a more specific subject (eg your example) we should consider a new entry, linked from more general one.

By the same token if someone sends in a new entry to PR which contains only a little bit of information that could easily be incorporated into an existing one, we should recommend an update instead.

It would be a good idea to drop a message on the user space of a Researcher when an update is embarked upon, but what happens if a request goes to them to update their entry and they say no, it's fine as it is?

I'm not sure authors should keep getting asked if changes were okay with every version. h2g2 is a collaborative place and that should be re-emphasised. Supposed an entry on Ludo was written with the barest essentials and it just scraped through, then someone came in and took it on and talked about the history of it, and strategy, that sort of thing, and did much more work on it than the original author, but the original author is the one who is asked permission. It doesn't seem fair.

> That's another good principle, I think: wherever possible create a new entry rather than adding a large new section to an existing entry.

Absolutely right, Lucinda

Facts, facts, facts ... Don't bother me with facts.

My question was about changing the 'feel' of an entry. There are entries on h2g2 which take a basically pessimistic/negative view on a subject and some that paint a subject in favourable light.
If an update changes the 'feel' of an entry is the author to be involved?

No, the author and any previous updaters certainly shouldn't have veto power, but I do think they should have a say in the process, and updaters should listen to the views of those who have gone before them. That's all...

-Martin

I suppose they would be given the opportunity to have their say with the calling card plonking on their personal spaces

of course if the person doing the update gives the original author a contributer credit right from the start, then the new entry will appear on that researchers space.

If you then get the feature being implimented where all contributers have to unsubscribe to threads, rather than having to subscribe to be notified, then that will radically improve the situation as well.
(this idea has already been raised elsewhere, but I don't happen to know if it has been added to the future features wishlist yet).

If they were subscribed automatically, then they would be notified about the writing workshop entry, and thus get the chance to comment.