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

I think that we do need to ensure that factual entries are actually factual.

We've got a *LOT* of factual entries and I think that it's worth continuing them, we're all going to have a tag for factual entries, and it should be very easy to work out if an entry is 'factual' or not.

If an entry is tagged factual it should contain reliable information that someone could know that it was factual information.

One way of doing it is to have a 'qualified' subject matter expert on the QA board, who could verify the science of purported scientific entries, etc etc. I would be happy to be the 'science and medicine editor' for instance, I can't know everything about science but I can know enough to verify whether an entry is rubbish or not.

This role would be something that would be great on the CV of a student or other aspiring journalist wouldn't it?

Assuming (a big assumption perhaps?) that there's still going to be a review system similar to PR, isn't that *precisely* what it's there for?

Since the number of users reviewing will hopefully be more than the number of users on the committee, that's also likely to be more workable.

I think putting an awful lot of work on individual committee members, and if the number of active writers increases as we hope it will, it could be an enormous task.

Ok but it depends what the entries on, what about an entry on the Bessermer Converter, or something else quite obscure? I've seen inaccurate entries get through PR without someone who knows the subject checking.

I do think that any entry on a health-related topic should get the approval of a trained, GMC registered doctor,(me) to check that the information is not dangerous.

I'm not so bothered about an inaccurate entry on the Bessermer converter, but we shouldn't be giving out inaccurate health information.

Absolutely - but to me, that's a reason for as big a range of reviewers as possible, and having people in PR who know their stuff. For anyone who's willing to be a specialist reviewer, they could just look in PR regularly to see if there's something in their field.

And if there's something that they've missed, there's no reason we can't leave them a message saying that there's an Entry in PR that might benefit from them taking a look.

Ok, say I happen to be an expert on .... ponies. I breed them. I ride them. I train them. I sell them. I never go to France in case I accidentally eat them. But I'm too busy mucking out stables to frequent Peer Review or write entries.

How about I put up my name as a specialist reviewer or a specialist QA person? I could help out when asked - ie when someone who is in PR spots an entry on ponies - I get the relatively easy task of checking the entry, and I don't have to waste my time on subjects I don't know anything about.

Might that work?

What concerns me is that there's a possibility that doing it this way could backfire. That is, lead to less contribution in Peer Review because people think "Oh, no need to check in there; if there's anything I can help with I'm sure it will be brought to my attention".

To my mind the biggest and best safeguard in the PR process is to have as many people as possible taking part. I've seen howlers slipping through PR before, and it has usually been when an Entry has sat there with very few people reviewing and then been picked when nobody spots anything amiss.

As to whether we should draw people's attention to something they might have missed in PR if we know it's a pet subject - it's a no-brainer. I don't think we need a new volunteer group for us to do that, though.

Good points, well made KB. It's been so long since I've done anything in PR - years and years - either as a reviewer or as a writer, that my opinion's not worth much on the subject.

A lot of us could say the same. I do browse it, but I haven't been very active there for a while.

This question of factuality touches on something which has been nagging at me for a little bit:


j_z_d and I have started a collaborative project to taste and make tasting notes of every single micro-brewed beer in our city. This is, obviously, a subjective exercise with a good deal of first personness, but it strikes me that it is the sort of thing which is perfectly appropriate to the Guide. As we've been working on it, I've been telling myself that it could always end up in The Post, but I'm aiming it at the Approved Guide.

Should there be an area/category for subjective reviews of restaurants, tourist attractions, beers, etc.?

I would hope so, I think it would be a really interesting thing to write and read, we would need to ensure quality was maintained as it would easily get mediocre..

Well, I've certainly found this one to be interesting to write.

I didn't realize when we started just how many beers I was going to have to try.


In the past I've tried to slip my subjective impressions into generalised sort of epilogues, as in A76774549 and A2654697 and to some extent (currently in PR) A81791003


But there are some subjects which need a more fully subjective treatment.

And, if we become too strict with being 'factual', we will in fact be reinventing wikipedia. A very important fact about the Guide is that it has always courted artistry. That is something I would like to retain.

I don't think that the QA is well-suited to fact-checking, for a few reasons. First, there will not be very many QAs - so fact-checking will be both impractical and will draw a smaller range of specialties. Second, QAs will usually deal with entries post-publication, so if PR gets used to relying on QAs to check facts, we may start discovering that something is inaccurate after an entry has been published on the front page.

I should take this time to say that if an entry purports to be factual, it should be factual, Unified Guide Theory or no. If someone spots a factual error in an entry, the UGT is not a defense ('Well, gee Ben I guess you're right, ponies aren't green, but I thought we were allowing fiction in the approved guide now?') - entries should be consistently factual or they should be a part of a different genre.

Opinion is, of course, a different thing. It's not hard for a reader to tell when an opinion is being offered. I think opinion is incredibly valuable. In the case of microbrews in a city, opinion is probably more valuable than unbiased factual information.

Anhaga, have you read about the Unified Guide Theory? Broadly speaking, this opens up Approved Entry status to a much wider range of entries including Reviews You might find this post interesting, it summarises what's been agreed about categorising entries, and describes the work that's stil to do. (Defining categories has turned out to be contentious - now there's a thing). http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/F20573021?thread=8094789&post=107168452#p107168452 PS - I forgot to include "Review" or "Reviews" in the list, but remembered after I hit post.

Sorry, Mrs. Zen, I haven't really been keeping up on things.


I've been sort of passive about what's going to happen next.

I'll have a look at the links later on today -- I've got go head out of the house soon. But I'm *very* reassured and pleased that the issue of reviews has already been discussed favourably.

None of us have kept up with all of it!

I'm just relieved we've reached the point where we can provide summaries of the conversation so far.