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

I like the idea.

So... Does this mean I could create my own "Guide to Whatsitsname" *in* h2g2 (the Guide to L/tU/E) and be my own Executive Editor, Editor, Author, Writer, Publisher et al. of my own "Guide to Whatsitsname" ?

It means that any entry published under the imprint of 24 lies a second would automatically be a movie review. Any entry marked Getting Down and Dirty with Ben would be automatically categorized as Gardening. Anything entry called Roll Your Own with Happy Nerd would be ... pushing the envelope perhaps, but everyone knows I live in the Emerald Triangle, right?

Uh, confused = me.
An Imprint would be what?
Like a periodical?
A brand-name (as I found Googling it)?
A publishing-name for related Entries (meta-tagging)?

>> So... Does this mean I could create my own "Guide to Whatsitsname" *in* h2g2 (the Guide to L/tU/E) and be my own Executive Editor, Editor, Author, Writer, Publisher et al. of my own "Guide to Whatsitsname" ?

Yep.

>> Like a periodical?

Yep - if you published periodically, then it would be like a periodical...

>> A brand-name (as I found Googling it)?

My first thought was to call it "Brand" but then I realised "Imprint" was better for a writing website.

>> A publishing-name for related Entries (meta-tagging)?

A perfectly accurate description.

Confused=me more.
Ben, from your answer I gather it would be like 'A Guide within the Guide', like having your own mini-h2g2.

OK, got it.
I *like* it.

Lot's of ing then, but hopefully not too confusing.

It's an interesting idea Ben. It would completely change everything - which isn't a bad thing, but I'll need some time to think through the ramifications. At first glance, I'm concerned about the bit about transferring editing rights around. That needs some close examination.

Jordon, it could mean someone might consolidate a SEx thread or two and make an entry, giving it the SEx imprint, and further threads on that topic could be attached to that entry, and all entries with the SEx imprint would end up categorized under Science, after due review.

It *would* completely change everything...

Take time to think it through, and post your thoughts here, Jordan.

The two ideas are separate. I've thought for a long time it would be much easier if we could share editing rights to our own entries and I think that's got to be a relatively minor tweak of DNA. Collaborative work and subbing would be hugely easier with that tweak alone.

The Imprints idea is harder to implement and far wider ranging.

B

>> someone might consolidate a SEx thread or two and make an entry, giving it the SEx imprint,

My feeling is that Imprints should have owners; the owner could be an individual or a group so that members of clubs and societies could share ownership. Maybe some Imprints would be entirely open, so anyone could put the "I support the Thingites" Imprint on an entry.

It's NOT about stealing things. I don't want a world where I could create an Imprint called "Ben's own unaided work" and then apply it to other people's entries.

It should be a way to promote your *own* work and *shared* work, not to steal other peoples' work.

B

Using Imprints (I made a typo and corrected it but the funny thing is... the typo read "I,print") would not upset the Rights & Roles as defined in A81616494. The sharing of authoring-rights has been provisioned in that model.

I think I grasp the idea HN. I'm more concerned with the ramifications for editorial processes, volunteers, really just the way that writing is done on h2g2 in general. With something this fundamental, there are sure to be lots of unanticipated consequences.

I'll tell you what I do like about this. It's the Unified Guide Theory in action. It allows for (some) distinction without the rigid hierarchy that comes from the two-tiered "Approved" and "unapproved" guide we have now.

Some concerns... I'd prefer that an author give permission before his work be included in someone else's "imprint". This may only apply to personal imprints. I also think (and I don't think you'll agree with me, but that's okay because I'm about 60-40 on this) that the site's Editors/Owners/Staff/whatever should be the only ones who can create an imprint. Sure, a person should be able to request one, but I think that this is most valuable if it *means* something to be a part of an imprint. It's better to have a dozen serious, operating imprints than two dozen half-serious imprints scattered in a junkyard of 600 defunct ones. An imprint could be "Distinction" in both senses of the word.

I agree that imprints and co-authorship rights are separate, but I was supposing that you put them together because you thought that the two ideas work together. I'm not sure about the connection there.

The most obvious problem with having co-authorship is that one person can edit another person's work away unintentionally, if two authors are editing at the same time. There's almost certainly a way to work around that, but it's not apparent to me. So some little things like that will need to be addressed.

>> I'd prefer that an author give permission before his work be included in someone else's "imprint". This may only apply to personal imprints.

I think that would be important.

Maybe there would be a way to do an "Imprint request" so I spot your entry on the mating habits of the greater spotted hydranga and think it would be perfect for my project on the sex lives of plants and when I click on you entry it sends you an Imprint Request which you either accept, reject or ignore.

Or maybe you could set a "no Imprints" flag on your entry. Like "not for Review" is now.

>> the site's Editors/Owners/Staff/whatever should be the only ones who can create an imprint.

I think it should be anyone. Some will be meaningless, and others will be high-status, but they'd all find their own level. Anyone can give out a Peace Prize, but only the Nobel is the Nobel...

>> It's better to have a dozen serious, operating imprints than two dozen half-serious imprints scattered in a junkyard of 600 defunct ones. An imprint could be "Distinction" in both senses of the word.

There are millions of brands in this world, and some carry more kudos than others. It would be up to the Imprint's owners to use their imprint wisely in a way which protected and promoted it.


>> I was supposing that you put them together because you thought that the two ideas work together. I'm not sure about the connection there.

The connection is in enabling collaborative working.


>> The most obvious problem with having co-authorship is that one person can edit another person's work away unintentionally, if two authors are editing at the same time. There's almost certainly a way to work around that, but it's not apparent to me. So some little things like that will need to be addressed.

Easy peasy. Two well established solutions to that. The first is a check-out check-in system, and the second is versioning. Both are pretty well established in other platforms.

Oh, it may be worth saying that Approved Entries would still be categorised by Genre, so you could still see if you were reading fact, opinion, review, humour, etc, etc etc.

>>> I'd prefer that an author give permission before his work be included in someone else's "imprint".


Hmmm. I hadn't even imagined a scenario where someone would be running around the site, slapping imprints on other people's work without permission. Yeah, I agree with getting permission for oh, so many things. I kind of hate it when my stuff is changed without my consent.

>> I hadn't even imagined a scenario where someone would be running around the site, slapping imprints on other people's work without permission.

When you put it like that, it makes the giving permission thing a no-brainer, really. Though I think would be nice to promote entries too. I'd love to see "Coelacanth's pick of the week" for example. But balancing pro versus con, I'd want to err on the side of protecting authors from sociopaths.

This is a good idea. Which is all I have to say right now. I like the flexibility of it, for sure.