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

I think where a lot of confusion arises from is that the term "community" is bandied about quite a lot. And people start thinking
of a teeny village where all can gather round and discuss what should be done about the invasion of moles or foxes.

A web-site cannot be a village/democracy sort of affair. Certainly, ideas can be tossed about and everyone toss an opinion. But
in the end, it is going to have to be the small number of responsible folks who make the decisions, and that is just what life will be.

I think that it was R A Heinlein who defined a committee as a life-form with 8 or more legs and no discernible inteligence. Trying
to come up with a happy compromise across this site is likely to spawn a great, slobbering thing of a million legs and no results ...

It's yet early days, relatively speaking. The site is settling in and some changes are happening at a pace that is comfortable
enough for most. Throwing tantrums or insulting accusations or declarations are not going to make anything better. I'm content to
watch the discussions as they happen, toss in a pair of coins here or perhaps off-this-line. And then live with the invested and
interested dedications of the volunteers

Are you talking about the Senior Volunteers there Nick, or all the volunteers?

I'm not talking about a village democracy (although afaik there is still the intention for h2g2 to hold elections, which *does* make what we are doing a democracy in the way that our countries are democracies: we elect representatives who then do the work for a set period of time). It is possible for the wider community to be more fully involved *and* for the Teams to have control over decision making.

No one has actually stated it yet, but I would think that a group of volunteers (say, ACE's) discuss what they think are needed changes or improvements. And their senior then takes that consensus to the SV's as you call them, to be hashed out.

There are pages galore here of just who is who and what. Anyone who has been around more than a year or two will know (or know of) one to three of the core of volunteers. In the very least, anyone new will know the name of their ACE, and have someone to call with an idea or suggestion.

As with a medium to small town, you don't need 11,000 people in the square shouting and trying to get the attention of the Mayor. It is all upwards fed. Find out who is your local representative, or someone who is somehow involved. And express yourself clearly and politely. If your idea is not understood, try again.

>>>>so a huge discussion about the pro and cons now was mute.

I disagree. I think if the actual reasons were laid out clearly in a formal way, then we might still discuss things and it might still get heated, but at least we, the wider community, would (a) know what was going on, and (b) be less disempowered. <<

Oh, OK. I'm more pragmatic, I guesss. I tend to accept things I can't change and not waste my energy on them. Doesn't mean I won't utter my discontent now and again, but generally I wouldn't discuss them at length. Fortunately, we're all different, or else the world would be a dull place to be.

>>I'm expecting to get slapped down at some point for posting as I am in this thread.<<

I *really* hope that won't happen.

Yes, I've been a lot recently (not just your posts) but that was mainly because of the way things were said, not necessarily about their content; but I hope I wasn't guilty of slapping anybody down for having an opinion.

>>I can't tell how much of that is we're not supposed to criticise our peers (whereas criticising the BBC was fine), and how much is just that we're still in quite a chaotic phase of the move.<<

I've wondered about that, too. I guess the difference is that the volunteers are part of the community and things get very personal very easily and often, which couldn't happen under the BBC.

And sometimes people misinterpret criticism about how things are being handled with criticism of the volunteers as such and jump to the volunteers' defence, getting personal themselves.

Nick, I *am* a volunteer and I can tell you that the process doesn't work like that here (for a whole bunch of reasons).

I can also say that I'm not advocating all 200 active researchers (or whatever the number is) come into a thread and shout, any more than I was suggesting to Gnomon that he has to ask the opinion of everyone onsite. I'm getting sick of what I am saying being portrayed like that.

I've been involved in quite a few different organisations using decision making processes that aren't bottom up in the way you describe. Like I said, it is possible for the wider community to be more involved without the core teams having to cede all their power to the community as a whole. What I'm hearing is reaction against that idea (ceding all power) despite my not having proposed that idea.

> I wouldn't have expected such drama and bitching (not you!) over a thing like this.< Bel

Are you joking us Bel?

Language is the total fundamental that h2g2 is founded upon..Its the pulse, the hearbeat and the guts of it.

The whole humour of Hitchikers and meaning is to do with the language.

But then I recently discovered what a joke use of language now is on this site when I visited the pretentiously, and clearly ridiculously named, 'Alternative Writing Workshop'

The soul of h2g2 counts for nothing now. Cultural concerns are totally ridden rough-shod over.

I never or very rarely read references now to do with brilliance and philosophy of the play.

I'm proud to carry on not getting the hang of thursdays...Bureocrats are welcome to however.

Good luck with the by-pass..

Anyone want exhaustive discussion on every point?
Yeah you can have that. Got a year to spare? Two?
Been there. Tried that.
Failed.
My own fault really, for allowing myself to get pissed off with the carping instead of getting the job done first - and then going back to listen.

- - - -

Dissenters: Attendez vous, listen in.
Could you do better? Set out your stall and I'll read it so long as you can hold my attention. Who knows? I might just vote for you.

But let's allow the place to settle in first, eh? Get off their backs, eh?
- - - -

Ach. Waste of time.
Shurrup Rod.

lost my brass nose - anyone seen it?

>But let's allow the place to settle in first, eh? Get off their backs, eh?<

It's already settled in, to utter blandness.

Everything h2g2 wasn't.

Have you seen the latest whizz bang Create idea for recipes? The way its done makes you want to...your wrists

http://h2g2.com/dna/h2g2/brunel/A87721626

Talking about cooking, recipes and food has always been a big feature here. With excitement energy and wit. Done spontaneously.

I can hardly bear it. But it's to do with the money thing the way its done now...and Americanised. You really should have attended the NaJoPoMo party.

I agree with what my friend anhaga says about these things. People should already be out on the streets shouting about it.

I'm English. We've always been badly behaved.

Blimey, over 50 posts since I last looked here and guess what? Surprise, surprise, the same 2 or 3 antaganists, pedalling the same tired arguments, not getting their own way and therefore everyone is wrong, they're right. I do hope we get that smiley.
I actually don't agree with the decision but the fact is, it wasn't my decision to make, it was for the CV's and NPL end of story. I accept it, the CV's and NPL have every right to make such decisions. When you listen to some on here they demand that the CV's and NPL declare to all when they go to the loo and insist the community be allowed to debate the pro's and con's of so doing. Pathetic.
I'm unsubbing now, further debate is pointless, we'll all still be wrong to that small minded minority whatever we say or do.
ttfn

BMT

> the same 2 or 3 antaganists<

It would be nice if you did what was always done traditionally under BBC h2g2.

Address the *argument*

It's never about the person(s)...it's about their argument in discussion.

I assumed this thread was a *discussion*

(But hey why address an argument when you can slag off ' the same 2 or 3 antaganists'?)

For the life of me, I cannot understand why those that are so unhappy with their perception of this website continue to hang around here.

Unless they are waiting for the chance to nominate themselves for a position come the elections, of course.

Pardon me for insisting, but I still think that

>>in instances where an American author is writing on an American subject, then use of American spelling for that Entry is both sensible and acceptable<<

makes little sense

So an American author will be able to use the familiar US spelling when writing about "an American subject", whatever that means, but for the next Entry which is about, say, broccoli, British spelling will have to be used?

And a French Researcher who learned US spelling at school and has been living in New York for years, who wants to write about the statue of Liberty will have to use British?

What about Australian Researchers wishing to write about Sydney, they won't even have their say as to whether to pick UK or US spelling, let alone the Australian version of the language?

What about Scottish, Welsh and Irish expressions, are these allowed?



I don't see why this exception has to be made. Either all researchers, no matter what nationality or topic, can pick the version they like best to write, the one they know and feel more comfortable with, or everyone has to arrange to stick to one particular brand of English, again regardless of nationality and topic.

I see a lot has been said here while I was working on creating the Front Page for tomorrow. I'll answer Mina's posting 138 since it appears to be a direct attack on me.

>>Gnomon wants it, so Gnomon gets it.

I don't have to tell you which of the Guide Editors makes which decision. Some are group decisions, some are individual ones. But all the Guide Editors stand behind the decisions. This one was decided by discussion with the community, then a quick check around the Guide Editors. I was not the one who instigated it.

>>I, I, I...

That's me. I'm not the only one working my butt off here. But I am one of the ones.

>>"Anyway, it was discussed and it was decided and that is the end of it."
>>Except clearly it's not as I see the thread has rumbled on.

As h2g2 Researchers, you off course have the right to keep talking about things long after it is appropriate. Nothing has ever stopped you before.

>>I'd had serious concerns about his possessive attitude to entries, changing things to be wrong, finally changing them back but insisting he's still right but can't prove it ( ) and frankly I don't trust him with any of my entries.

I believe you're referring to two cases:

- in one, you had quoted a fact about electricity from someone else's site which was wrong so I corrected it. I'm an electrical engineer and I was right to change that one. Your entry was wrong. It was a minor point, but still wrong.

- in the other, I made about 10 corrections to spelling, grammar and punctuation of an entry written by a friend of yours. Less than an hour later I realised that one of the changes I had made was wrong and changed it back. For some reason you made a big deal of this at the time, but didn't comment on the nine improvements I had made to the entry.

>>I had gone so far as to contact the old Editors before now with my worries

I presume that the Old Editors paid very little attention to your complaints, as they were happy with my work. They certainly never complained to me.

>>I won't go so far as to remove my entries(which I have been told is now possible but am not sure)

It is not possible. You can remove any entries which are unedited, but the Edited ones are part of the Guide and can't be removed. You agreed to them being part of the Guide when you submitted them.

>>*he* doesn't like the Guidelines so he's changed them.
I haven't changed them. THe Guide Editors are in the process of doing it. I agreed to a decision that was made by the group, not on my instigation.

>> *he* really can't be bothered to change the spellings on the entries he edits.
Now that is an insult. I have always bothered. I doubt any other sub-editor has ever cared as much.

>>
I have nothing to say about Gnomon personally, just the way I see h2g2 being treated like one person's personal playground and now he appears to own it.

Everything I have done to the Guide has improved it. I've probably personally corrected about 3,000 of the 10,000 entries in the Guide. If you have any objections to any of those corrections, please report them in Editorial Feedback. Another Guide Editor can check them.

I've just disabled every spell-checker on my browser except for 'Canadian English'.

If I have the honour of submitting any entries to PR in the future, they'll most likely be on Canadian subjects and so I will use a style appropriate to those subjects.

I trust everyone will recognize that as appropriate.

But you are Canadian, not American

I've a couple of observations here about "what Douglas would have wanted".

The Digital Village, which was the company that launched h2g2, had Robbie Stamp as its chief executive: http://tdv.com/html/robbie_s.html (that page is 12 years old, and does not mention the film, for example, which he produced).

Douglas Adams was one of many other people involved, and the TDV website says "Douglas is a founding partner and the Chief Fantasist of The Digital Village." He was the most famous, but Michael Bywater's no slouch in the writing department either. Having spoken to Robbie and to Richard Harris ( http://tdv.com/html/richard_h.html ) and having read up a lot on Douglas Adams for my disser-bloody-tation, I've come to the conclusion that h2g2 was the product of many brilliant minds, not just Douglas Adams'.

Like a lot of people here, I've read the books carefully, I've read Douglas Adams' biographies, I've spoken to previous staff, but all that's trumped by the fact that we have a very direct route to the original h2g2 people, to Douglas Adams' legacy, and to the original vision for the site.

In fact, we've not just got a direct route - the original Chief Executive of h2g2 is leading us again.

Robbie is the chair of the board of Not Panicking Ltd which sets the direction for h2g2. (All of this was announced months ago - A85803771 and the BBC's own announcements thread). Robbie in particular has sent out some very clear messages to the Core Team about what is and is not in the spirit of h2g2. So it makes sense to me that we should listen when he says that something is or is not the way to go, because it in my mind it's a better indication of "what Douglas would have wanted" or "what Douglas would have thought" than anyone else here can provide.

Emotions here are running high for all sorts of reasons, but it might help to reduce the speculation about "what Douglas Adams thought" and "what Douglas Adams would have wanted" out because, actually, we CAN find that out, or as near as dammit, these days.

Ben

I've read the whole thread as it's gone along and not had a thing to say that I thought could be helpful.

I might do now though before the thread is closed.

I don't know why the guidelines have been changed other than the reasons stated here, I don't really understand why it doesn't apply to other English variations.

I do understand why some people feel strongly about it and I also understand that at the end of the day a few people have to make the decisions for the greater good.

I don't understand why this incarnation is any worse or better than the last one, yet. I suspect that over time we might see it as better but that will take time and none of us are here for the sprint, we're marathon runners.

None of this would have been acceptable when we were with the BBC and I don't understand why any of us think it's acceptable just because we were cut loose. The standard of English English might have changed but there's no reason that our other standards have to change.

Bringing personalities into any debate doesn't forward it in any way. I know why the people here are saying what they're saying. I know why they're still here when they're not 100% delighted with things at the moment. The 'who do you think you are' and 'go elsewhere' isn't an acceptable way to deal with people who are here and will probably remain here.

Why can't we just do what we've always done and wait and see?

I've said earlier, we're marathon runners and we've been running for years and years, we'll hopefully be running for years to come. So, in short, while we're running this marathon can we not all keep our heads down and keep plodding on? Let's all do what we're good at - be that tweaking, editing, computering, writing, debating, poeting, chatting and above all be civil to each other until we've finished this leg of the race?

"The whole aim of private companies is to make a profit."

I used to believe that, until............ one day I found myself in a classroom with 19 other aspiring systems analysts, each of us straining to reach the sky in our eagerness to be chosen to answer such an easy question as, "What is the primary aim of a business?"

Well, someone else was picked to give the obvious answer, my answer, and it was wrong.

The primary objective is not profit - it is *to stay in business*.

If h2g2 were to impose a substantial membership fee, or if it was decided to plaster the site with intrusive advertising, for example, then the continued existence of h2g2 might be under threat.

Allowing non-standard English in Edited Guide Entries (although I am against it) is unlikely to jeopardise the future of h2g2. Squabbling among seasoned Researchers might not break the site either, but it certainly sours the atmosphere and may well be deterring prospective members.

'Allowing non-standard English in Edited Guide Entries . . .'

for me that's not quite the issue here -- no one is really talking about allowing non-standard English. The issue is having *multiple* standards. Any standard is to some degree arbitrary, but there is at least an historical reason, which can be cited as justification, that British English has been the standard. Adding an additional standard inevitably raises the question 'why their standard rather than mine?'

I seriously can't understand, despite the explanations here, the reasoning behind the decision to multiply standards.

If some site decided to try to appeal to 35 million potential Canadian readers by allowing Canadian Standard spelling I would think:


a) the operators of the site don't have much confidence in the attractiveness of their place if spelling would make or break participation.

b) the operators of the site don't have much respect for Canadians if they think spelling would make or break their participation ("Oh, look! This site lets me spell 'colour' with a u and 'harmonize' with a zed! Gosh! I think I'll hang out here! eh.")




I think multiplying standards makes non-sense of language and is more than a little lazy.

"no one is really talking about allowing non-standard English. The issue is having *multiple* standards."

That's 'standard English' and several types of non-standard English, right?