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

Ground rule 2, guys - don't be judgmental, yet. You'll have the opportunity later.

Suggest an alternative for any you don't agree with.

*Ground rule 2, guys - don't be judgmental, yet.*
Bit late for that Icy, I daresay I'll get slagged off up dale and down dale for saying this but frankly when you have the likes of FM ranting away, nothing will happen in a positive way simply because he will NEVER accept that others have a genuine right to say how and what happens to the guide and h2, he thinks there is only him and his ilk that can save H2 and the Guide. Whatever anyone else says or does will never be good enough and frankly I'm now unsubbing and removing these threads from bookmarks as well. Its a pointless exercise with the sort of attitudes being shown by some and no surprise that its the same few yet again trying to impose their will on how things should be done.

(removed from )

OK: allow people to say what they like about the Entry. If they think it stinks, then allow them to say so. Just require them to back up their assertions with arguments.

Expecrt reviewers in PR to apply and be capable of applying discretion when so dealing with authors. If the author is a newbie, then treat them gently. If on the other hand the author is a long-standing fully paid up member of the Awkward Squad, then treat them accordingly.

Just remember that at the end of the day, the subject of discussion is more important than how people feel about that's being said. I don't *owe* anybody here *anything*, and they don't owe me anything either. The fact that I can be bothered to turn up and comment in the first place is a good thing in itself.

>>the subject of discussion is more important than how people feel about that's[sic] being said<<

True. Which is why everyone ought to remain fair and subjective and refrain from personal attacks, to keep emotions from getting in the way in the first place. Provoking people and then expecting them not to react isn't going to work.

Perhaps, for an experiment, we ought to try keeping the review PR entirely in the third person, too. Not "I believe you're wrong..." or "You wrote this badly...", but "This needs clarification..."

"he will NEVER accept that others have a genuine right to say how and what happens to the guide and h2, he thinks there is only him and his ilk that can save H2 and the Guide. Whatever anyone else says or does will never be good enough and frankly I'm now unsubbing and removing these threads from bookmarks as well. Its a pointless exercise with the sort of attitudes being shown by some and no surprise that its the same few yet again trying to impose their will on how things should be done."

Not at all. How can I *impose* *my* will on what's being done, exactly? I'm happy to hear what others have to say as well, but it seems that what I've been saying strikes a chord with many. I'm pointing out what I see is wrong with the EG. You are perefctly at liberty to disagree with me, but please tell me why while you're at it.

I'm just trying to start some debate. If you're afraid of getting engaged in that more deeply then it says volumes more about you than me. I know you pride yourself on speaking your mind, Straight Talker. But if what you tend to say is any indication of what's going on inside your head, I'd be inclined to keep quiet about it.

I thought the premise was no debating here - else this thread will be too cluttered for Icy to do anything useful with it

We still have F3719964?thread=5500615 for debating...

I was responding to that rather crude *ad hominem* attack from ST.

Anyway, I'd suggest that as an opening exercise, everyone writes about an aspect of the city or town where they live at the moment in a way that *makes* people want to visit it. I'm currently writing an entry on the Nottingham Broadway Media Centre, one of my favourite hang-outs. This is long overdue as it's a brilliant cinema, one of the world's best.

Don't worry, I'll still find something useful to do with it, Malabarista.

Well, any more suggestions?

Well, here's another one: champion *anything* that serves to broaden h2g2's appeal and audience. Very simple.

The restriction on the first person should be taken away. It doesn't keep rants out of PR, and part of PR's job is to keep the rants out of the edited guide, anyway.

Secondly, it just leads to silly things like researchers saying things like "In one researcher's experience" instead of "In my experience", simply because that puts it into the third person.

In a sense, the "Quality of PR" should not be an issue. PR is a quality control mechanism, so to speak. If a quality control system doesn't meet with sub-standard output, there's something wrong going on. That's a big part of its reason for being.

OK, I needed to let this run for a little bit first, but although they're valid, some of the suggestions listed above are more in the area of ideas and wishes than actions (see ground rule 1). Can I ask you to clarify a few of them?

Suggestions for clarification are welcome from anyone, not just the original poster:


Post 2 (Elentari): What action would you propose we take to identify and process the material hidden in unedited entries?

Post 3 (GB): How should we enforce Scouts either doing the job or quitting? Do you mean change the description of scouting in the Volunteer pages, or create a new Volunteers Code of Conduct, or something?

Post 4 (Malabarista): Bullet point 3 (using the edit window buttons) - Do you want this advice to writers enshrined in one of the help pages?

Post 17 (FM): a) What actions would you take to remove the Douglas Adams influence?

b) What should we actually be doing to get writers 'real, opinionated and provocative'?

Post 19 (GB): Re keeping PR comments to the subject in hand - How would you enforce/communicate this to reviewers? On one of the help pages?

Post 23 (FM): a) Re Allow people to say what they like in PR - What actions would you take in h2g2 to make this happen?

b) Re Reviewers to apply discretion - again, what would you do to make this happen?

Post 27 (FM): Re Everyone writes about an aspect of their home town - how should we make this happen?

Post 30 (FM): Re Champion *anything* that serves to broaden h2g2's appeal and audience - What should we do to achieve this?


Icy

Post 2 (Elentari): What action would you propose we take to identify and process the material hidden in unedited entries?

Someone suggested finding gaps in the guide to be filled, which can be done using the categorisation system. Then search the guide and if there is an unedited entry on the subject which looks vaguely usable, contact the original author if they're still about. They may want to continue it, collaborate on it with you, or allow you to take it over entirely. If they're elvised, get it put into the Flea Market and publicise what is in there (maybe a column in ?). Researchers can then pick out anything that sounds interesting or pick depending on the readiness of the piece and how much time they have to devote to it.

Not sure if there's a process for getting things put into the Flea Market from the unedited guide.

Does that help?

RE the gaps - the way I usually find them is while adding links to my entries. I usually have a can't-believe-there-isn't-one moment at least once

Yes, that's clearer, thanks!

So perhaps an thread for taking notes on obvious gaps you've found, which people needing ideas can check?

Isn't that what Challenge h2g2 is for?

Yes, but there are ones that aren't real "challenges", because it would be easy to do one

I do think a column in the Post would be a good idea. It could have a list of really obvious gaps and entries which have been recently sent to the Flea Market.

Whether or not they are "challenging" isn't really the point. Drawing attention to the gaps is the point.