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

Spiff suggested in another thread that this was a better place to air my views.

He said I was barking (which I take to mean making spirited aggressive noises, rather than the alternative interpretation). Actually I was having an impotent winge, because I don't see how to win this one.

But my point is that there won't be a satisfactory Underguide as long as there's an EG. The Edited Guide is the problem here. It's premise is absurd, and its editorial standards (that means all of us, note) are dire.

The material we're talking about for the Underguide (ie well-written, unclassifiable, original material) should be the showcase of h2g2.

Not the lowest-common-denominator stuff that we inexplicably venerate now. Let's face up to it, deference to the EG is probably imperative given TPTB, but to do so is admitting defeat before we start.

So I just want to say that the EG has had the wit kicked out of it.
That's because of a set of rules written by people who have "missed the point" (I'm trying to be polite here). The administration of this site is not its central activity, guys. The central activity is something called writing. It's done from the heart, by people who feel a need to share something. Respect them, even preen them (good editors do that, you know). Above all, recognise that without them, this place is sterile. And that binding them with these rules amounts to the same thing as not having them.

Just one example : Don't try be funny, they tell us, because it might not come off, and the editors don't want to spend their time sifting through tons of embarrassingly unfunny dross, on the off chance that there might be a few gems in there somewhere.

Well, duh.

Is that missing the point, or what? It's criminal in my book. It's practically fascism.

The real campaign here should be for new rules for the EG, and an abandonment of the ideas of inclusivity that stifle quality and creativity. Laudable to have everyone, including the talentless, contributing I'm sure. But writing is art, and elitism is implicit.

Do we want to keep and attract good writers here, or don't we? This place could be a hotbed of writing talent, a springboard for a wider stage, and a worthwhile homage to DNA.

Instead, we have created the Edited Guide, and to our eternal shame, we've done it in Douglas' name.

Am I really the only one who sees it this way?

Pin

No.

But ... I've reread DNA's welcome page, I remember him talking about h2 on the radio. Being updatable, practical and written by the community were major points of his and the points about the EG you criticise, that I've criticised, I now think are inevitable consequences of those points. So I've come round to thinking that the EG is in line, in principle, with what was intended.

That begs the question of whether DNA would have been happy with the results. I don't know. I see a place for the EG. It produces some excellent entries and once the updating system is sorted out poor ones ought to get replaced over time and the quality will rise.

With the BBC in charge and having taken this on principally as an on-line community, as I believe they did, inclusivity is inevitable isn't it? Public licence fees and getting the nation online and all that. It may be admitting defeat but if the Underguide takes off from here and thrives that will say something in itself. Something that we haven't succeeded in saying in other ways.

I've tried in a small way, and I've seen others trying to challenge the EG guidelines. Those battles were lost. I'm left with trying to contribute to doing something about improving the situation. The Underguide is a lot better than nothing and could be really good in it's own right regardless of its official status on the site.

I don't see any harm in the long run in having encyclopaedic entries separately identified within the archives, which is all, in the long run it would boil down to.

These are just my views. AgcBen has said somewhere that although there's some agreement on proposals for setting up the Underguide, people's reasons for doing so and ideas of where it might lead differ.

What would be your choice of where to go from here Pinniped?
Waz

Hi Pinniped,

It sounds like your main disagreement is with the guidelines for the Edited Guide. If you'd like them to change their guidelines, the Italics would be the people to discuss it with.

On the other hand, the tentative guidelines for the Underguide, still under discussion, are pretty much wide, wide open. We don't want plagiarism, we can't do anything with entries that violate general House Rules, and we won't accept pieces that could be accepted to the Edited Guide. So our territory includes everything else. Wouldn't that solve the problems you're talking about? They reject it from the Edited Guide on whatever grounds, then the Underguide gives a second chance, no matter how intentionally funny an entry is, or no matter what other stylistic rules prevents it from being used in the Edited Guide.

Keep in mind that the only reason that the idea of the Underguide has made participants excited is that the Italics have hinted we could show a link each day on the front page. Others have suggested that the Underguide will still suffer if our entries have to be approved by the Italics, but the only solution to that problem is to abandon this site and start a creative writing project on a different site.

So I think most people involved with the Underguide are resigned to the fact that Italics will still have some control over what we do, and we're okay with that. We still think we can promote a lot of great writing even if it's limited to things that meet the House Rules.

Maybe I didn't understand the problem you were describing, but it sounds like either you want the Edited Guide to have a different scope or else you'd like the Underguide to overpower the Edited Guide somehow. If it's the scope of the Edited Guide, then underguide people won't be able to do anything about that. If you mean we need to overpower the Edited Guide, we don't have that kind of power. In fact, the only power we have, the thing that brought us together, is a little donated space of the front page that they might give us, and I would prefer to take advantage of that bit than to try remaking the wheel.

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding you. What would you suggest the Underguide could do to solve the problem?

I've tried to assimilate the stuff round and about, including your own Underguide Volunteer drafts and the main proposals. It all has merit, sure.

There are a few things I feel the need to say (and I know I'm addressing someone who writes well and who works hard to improve this place. Don't get mad at me. I'm answering because you asked my opinion) :

- Why are we all so preoccupied with admin here? In any group where the Editors consider themselves more important than the Writers, there will be no worthwhile product. When the fundamental problem is a bunch of anal retentives (there, now I'm getting abusive...) who beat creativity to death, the answer is not going to be to create some equally rule-bound alternative, even if the rules are intended to be a bit more benign.

- The principle of Peer Review will not work on the models suggested, any more than it works in the EG. To see why, think about REAL Peer Review, in the academic world, where serious researchers in a given field referee one another's papers. You know that world? It's often catty, it's sometimes underhand, but it's always expert. Our "Researchers" are not experts. When they try to sort wheat from chaff, they create a homogeneous wheat/chaff mixture, with the grammar "improved". When I look at the so-called criticism in PR, I have to conclude that at least half of it concerns the correct interpretation of the "Rules".

- Couldn't we revert to a small group of competent editors? This would be ideal, but it's probably hopeless given the attitude of the Powers. (I wandered around the FAQ again a while ago; a real exercise in masochism, that is. Among the many stupifying statements I found was one that declared that to be a Sub-Editor you have to be a good writer, but in particular you'd have to be hot on grammar and spelling. Honestly, whoever wrote that should never be allowed near a keyboard again. Somewhere else it describes the EG as the best of h2g2. I could cry, I really could).

So, I guess I'd fall behind Ben's ideas and your development of them and help where I could, but I'd do so without much real enthusiasm. I'd rather try seize the project back from the retards who are spoiling it. But I know that that's futile. I'm also very, very sure that what we've got would not be what Douglas wanted. This isn't inclusivity; it's rigorously-enforced mediocrity where no-one is allowed to shine. Ostensible democracies always end up being policed by grey individuals who elevate administration above the activity that it's intended to facilitate. You're going nowhere, I'm afraid, because you're playing them at their own game and conforming to their rules.

This is all I intend to say about this. It's not especially cogent, but then again perhaps I'm not especially clear-thinking. It's not especially persuasive, either, which just goes to show the perils of trying to make your point in other peoples' terms.

I'm going back to my own world and my own stuff, Waz. I'm better at that. Just don't any of us forget that this is art, and that it's supposed to feed the spirit, OK?

Pin

Oops...my comments above were a reply to Waz, one post up. I took so long chopping it around that I missed Deidzoeb's post...

Hi Deidzoeb

I don't think I know what the Underguide could do to solve the problem. You're right, of course, that a small shop window is a start.

Italics? Some of the Italics seem nice. Surely those people aren't my oppressors? I'll call them Powers.

Debating rule-alterations with the Powers is futile, because it's a discussion in the wrong terms. There shouldn't be any rules. But there have to be rules, because they've enlisted morons (meaning us, ie anyone/thing who happens to be loitering around PR) to do part of the editing. Morons need rules. And so it starts.

Do you really think my comments are useful to you? I'll help if I can. I just don't feel very good about what seems like helping you (all) contemplate your navel(s).

See what I mean?
Pinniped

There's no question of being mad at you. I think your comments are very useful. There's a lot to think about in them. I am still thinking about them but I'm going to leave it a few days to come back to with enough perspective to see above the midriff ().


"Just don't any of us forget that this is art, and that it's supposed to feed the spirit, OK?"

Let's shake on that.

(If it wasn't another rule I'd make that a rule of thumb for picking Underguide entries.)

Hi Pin,

As Waz said - there is a lot to think about in this thread. I can however give you a simple and fairly banal answer to one question which you asked.

You asked why we were spending so much time on processes and procedures, at the (presumed) expence of getting out there and doing.

This is a phenomonally good question, and one which deserves answering.

The short answer is that I am a Business Analyst - analysing and documenting processes is what I do for a living. So it has been very simple for me to settle in and start doing this, where it might invoke complete brain-death in someone else. Subcom, Waz and GTB will have to give you their own reasons, but that is mine.



Here is the long answer, if it won't bore you too much.

Firstly - I agree with you that the EG is limited by the rules which have come to surround it. I also agree that it is sometimes too inclusive, and that it does not represent the best of h2g2.

Secondly - I have come to think that there are four things that distinguish an Edited Entry from an Unedited one:

a) EG entries can be searched for separately - a good thing for readers
b) EG entries are clearly distinguished from non EG entries - another good thing for readers
c) EG entries are read and discussed - first in PR and then on the front page - a a good thing for writers
d) Not all the entries that are offered make the cut - a good thing for writers of those entries that do

I have been wanting to achieve (c) and (d) for entries considered unsuitable for the EG for a long time, but recently I have been wanting to achieve (a) and (b) too.

For me, the approach is best sumarized in the phrases 'if you can't beat them, join them' and 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'. Now, I agree that in many ways it can be argued that is in fact broke. However, to trot out another quote 'if you knows of a better
hole, go to it' - in other words, I don't know anywhere else which does what h2g2 does *better* than h2g2. If I did, I would go there as well.

Ok - why so much time spent on processes?

Two reasons:

Firstly - The Editors are only likely to consider giving us a space on the front page and a clear way of distinguishing selected UG entries from non-selected UG entries if they can rely on there being selections. They won't do it for us. They have said they will consider doing it if we prove that we have a workable proposal. It is the only deal on the table. To be at the table, and take the deal, we have to come up with repeatable, reliable, documented processes.

Secondly - I am a Business Analyst - I define and document processes for a living. I am also at times a poet. If I choose to spend my time documenting the processes by which we can achieve the UG then I perceive that as a good use of my time so long as it does not stop me earning a living, writing poetry, or - and here IS the kicker - working on reading, reviewing, critiquing and selecting entries for the UG. Well, I have been doing more of the above since starting on the documentation than I ever did before.

Anyway - there is more than enough of this numbered and notated procedural bullshit in response to your crie de coeur.

I think your crie de coeur has more validity, myself.

B

Hi Pinniped

I should declare an interest straight away and say that I think the EG has some very fine work in it. I can pick a random EG entry and there is at least a 50% chance I will be entertained or informed in reading it. You're right to say that inclusivity drives some pieces in which are not very good, but which have seen a lot of work by the author, into the guide. I think this is fair enough. And every now and then something which is clearly not good gets through, which is frustrating as it demeans the good quality pieces.

On the whole though I don't think the EG has a problem as such - the problem is that it can never be the full answer. We need an alternative with a similar profile and structure for non-EG writing.

At the moment, excellent bits of non-EG work get lost, or sent to AWW and drowned in crud, and its an enormous waste. The UG could change all that, and that's why it's worth proceduralising for a few postings. (At this point I should perhaps say that as a lawyer I also quite like to talk about procedures and processes - there's something oddly comforting about it....) More seriously if the procedure doesn't work, the UG won't work and I think we need the UG.

I think there is room for the EG and the UG on the site - that way we can encourage and show case good factual writing and good creative writing.

Sprout

Oh Ben,Ben,Ben,Ben...

You really think that was "simple and fairly banal"?

You're a great writer, Ben. Moreover you have powers of perception that I can only envy. I've read your stuff and found a new viewpoint on so many things. I've wondered at your style, your balance and your reason.

So don't do this to me.

OK, you're a business analyst. You mightn't have noticed, but this isn't a commercial enterprise. Systems and analysis are maybe necessary when stakeholders have expectations of financial return, but h2g2 stakeholders are just here for fun and for enlightenment. That's all there is to it.

And it's not as if you're just using the wrong approach. You're using the approach that caused the problem in the first place. You're putting out fire with gasoline, Ben.

I respect the energy and effort you're giving to this, and your sincerity about improving it. I'll back whatever you propose because someone smart and honest proposes it, not because I understand it.

Please don't try persuade me with the deep stuff, though. I've got my fingers in my ears. I get enough of this stuff at work, and I come here to get away from all that.

Pin

(sprout : OK, point of view. Respect. The EG just doesn't do that for me, I'm sorry to say. My usual experience when I read an EG entry is to see the bits that are missing. The EG is full of wasted opportunity where something really clever might have been said, but for the Rules. It's like looking at a pretty face with teeth missing)

Well, the fact that I am doing procedural stuff for this undertaking because that is what I do for a living is pretty blumming banal, no?

Thanks for your reply Pin. I suspect that we have fundamentally different assumptions about the EG and what it *could* be. "You're using the approach that caused the problem in the first place. You're putting out fire with gasoline," really resonates with me. In fact it scares me quite a bit, because it might just be true.

"...this isn't a commercial enterprise. Systems and analysis are maybe necessary when stakeholders have expectations of financial return, but h2g2 stakeholders are just here for fun and for enlightenment. That's all there is to it."

Oh, I wish that were true. Sure, the BBC does not want h2g2 to be profit-making as such, but it *does* have metrics by which it measures the success of the site, (I know this for a fact, though I do not know the details of what these metrics are). So the site can be seen as being 'more successful' or 'less successful' in the eyes of those who own it and pay for our pleasureground.

And although this part of the BBC is not a commercial enterprise it IS an enterprise. The Italics think like employees doing a job and reporting to a boss because that this exactly what they are. H2G2 is fun for us. For them it is a job of work. In many respects I feel exeedingly sorry for them.

I guess our fundamental and axiomatic difference is that I take a pragmatic view. The EG is how this site works. I would rather be inside the tent p**ssing out than outside p**sing in, and I am prepared to make some compromises in order to achieve *something* rather than make no compromises and achieve a pure and perfect nothing.

This is not to say that I am right. This is just to explain my viewpoint.

I am going to think about what you have said, Pin, because I have to respect opinions held so passionately. And after all - I may be wrong. If it is any comfort to you there are two or three things which the UG, and the group of us working for the UG, could turn into which would make me walk right out of the tent and avoid all p**sing matches here in the future. I am not saying what these things are - there isn't much point - but I am not buying this whole thing withought forethought.

"I'll back whatever you propose because someone smart and honest proposes it, not because I understand it." No. Back it because you agree with it, or don't back it because you disagree with it. But don't back it because I (or any of us) propose it. You give us too much credence.

Ben
*chewing the cud, and feeding on the food for thought in Pin's posts*

Hey Ben, come here.

You're great.
I was unkind.
(But you're right. You are pragmatic...)
Pin

...So...they measure us, do they? I like that. Maybe I can be anarchic in TWO workplaces...

...Hey, Auntie! Me and my Mates, we're the best thing here! And you're NEVER going to control us!

s Pin.

Hey - you weren't unkind. And in many respects you are right, and I agree with you (which two statements imply different things).

I wish we could be anarchists, and I guess I have sold out... Oh well. You see, I never did actually *like* the Beeb that much, and I feared it when it was announced that it had taken on h2g2. I think a beeb-ified h2g2 is better than no h2g2, but... but... but...

Oh, hell-dammit, Pin, give us another

B

You go write something that doesn't have procedures in it, OK?

Yessir!

:-p

B

For me, this discussion is best answered by 'if you knows of a better
hole, go to it'. Anything else I tried to add would be repeating that theme in a long-winded way.

Ah, but Deidzoeb, where can one find another hole with such a discerning audience?

I'm not talking about myself, Heaven forfend, but don't we owe something to those vain little fantasists who crave self-importance, and who gravitate to portentous Conversations, who eavesdrop on Revolutionaries simply because they seek a fresh column of refugees plodding past their futile little stage?

You know, all this reminds of my student days, when my own slight tendency to play to the gallery brought me to take up unofficial residence in a houseful of gorgeous women, eschewing all demands for rent, justifying my presence simply through the dashing buzz of my repartee (plus, of course, the lure of my sleek body).

In fact that incident was the source of my fame, once I'd brilliantly re-penned the episode as the screenplay of "The Witches of Eastwick". And it was such a pleasure to work with Jack. If any act-or could come close to scaling the mountain of my personality, or at least of taking an invigorating tramp through its foothills, it was dear old Jack...

* wanders off, happily talking to himself... *