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

Entry: Douglas Adams Versus H2G2 Editorial Policy - A948990
Author: Mike OShea - U216090

I await comments.

Ok Mike

For starters this shouldn't be in peer review.

And secondly there is plenty of personal opinion etc on h2g2. However even when DNA was alive there were criteria that had to be meet even when the site was owned by the Digital Village some of us who were around then did get letters from teh eds on occasions telling us that our attempted entries into the guide did not meet the criteria laid out then.

Personal opinion and fiction does have a place on H2G2 you can find it through the search engines but since the ealry days to have an officially edited entry there were only certain entries that would ever meet the criteria. Look at my full list of entries there are many there that I would not even consider passing into peer review for consideration. However I do not think that the editorial process takes away from DNA's vision. The conversation forums are there along with journal for plenty of personal opinion and they have also been there since the start.

I think trying to use someone's death to attack the editorial principles which were in place a long time before and have genetically grown as the guide has grown is slightly underhand and dispicable if you want personal opinion though.

Well you did ask.

"Douglas Adams says in his introductory welcome to h2g2, "You can create your own Guide Entries containing anything you want, from your opinions of world events to a description of your home town, and it all goes to make up the h2g2 Guide ..." NOW - at what point was it decided that personal opinions would NOT, in fact be welcome?"

As soon as you create an entry it becomes part of The Guide, and remains so whether or not is ever edited unless or until the author deletes it (and even then it can be brought back from the dead). Anyone who searches on the subject of your entry will find it in the search results, as long as they don't eliminate 'Normal Guide entries' from their search. If you want to contribute to the Edited Guide however, the guidelines are laid out in a very clear manner here Writing-Guidelines

If you want to write an opinion piece it will still form part of the overall Guide, whilst not being in the Edited Guide. You are also at liberty to submit it to <./>ThePost</.> or AGG/GAG where it will be read by plenty of Researchers

This matter has been and is being discussed in a good few conversations here <./>Feedback-Editorial</.> and there is currently a proposal for an 'official' alternative Guide here F55683?thread=237166 which I think would be more like the kind of thing you envision for h2g2.

Hi Mike,

I spotted your Catholic Authority entry in PR, but haven't been very active on h2 generally recently, and didn't take the time to comment.

I must start by saying that I found what you wrote very interesting and by no means 'inadmissible', despite not sticking to the Edited Guide guidelines.

I think one point that you appear to be missing is that you *can* write this kind of piece on h2g2 and it *automatically* becomes part of the site. The search engine will bring it up (hopefully) if one of the keywords in the title is in the search string. Anyone can read it and comment on it.

There is, however, an enormous difference between writing a personal entry for your own enjoyment and (again, hopefully) for others to enjoy, and writing something for the Edited Guide (EG).

Peer Review is a forum for people to submit entries that are 'factual, informative and entertaining'. Over the time h2g2 has existed, there have been many debates about what 'should' and 'shouldn't' go through for editing.

In the early days, apparently, pretty much anything went. But today, PR is pretty rigourous. Indeed, so much so that some long-standing peer reviewers feel that the EG is becoming to 'encyclopoedia-like'. The words 'boring and pedestrian' have even been uttered in anger!

What you have written is a prime contender for a different type of writing that i for one feel needs a more 'visible' place on h2g2. There have been various discussions about it, and if you check out <./>ThePost</.> then you will see that there is a place for personal writing.

It seems to me that you submitted an entry here with certain expectations, and that you are disappointed with the reaction you have received.

Please consider that this is not the fault of the site, but of those expectations.

If you'd like, there *is* a forum here for all kinds of non-EG writing, the AWW, at Writing-Alternative

That is a forum set up exactly like PR, but for all kinds of writing, from personal pieces to travel writing, wacky stuff and beyond. I might even suggest you read one or two entries there, as there really is some good stuff.



I'm not sure if i am making the point i wanted to, but here's a last ditch effort, just in case; don't be put off by the fact that your entry is not faring well in PR, just bear in mind that there is much more to this site than that one forum (which sets out its purpose very clearly in the intro page, so you can't claim you weren't warned, ), and there are lots of people who are enthusiastic about this kind of personal writing here.

PR and the EG are not the be-all-and-end-all of writing on h2g2!

Oh, and...

Don't Panic!

Cya
Spiff

PS - i should really find you a link to some discussion of how to promote non-EG writing here, but i'm not sure where to find them just now... sorry. As they used to say in my school reports, 'Some good ideas but must try harder!'

Ooh look! Gosho found it for me!

*waves* Howdee Gosho.

Hiya Spiff

Careful with them waves - I get motion sickness very easily y'know

QUOTE: "For starters this shouldn't be in peer review."
COMMENT: "It is probably more directly relevant to the editors - those who make the rules and implement them - but I judged that the thinking and expression of opinion by ordinary members and contributors are important. I would like to see alterations to a current rule that I regard as restrictive, and held with an almost irrational obsession, but such change, if it is to come, will not be achieved by the opinions of one person. Rational discussion by the widest possible number of people is essential."

QUOTE: "And secondly there is plenty of personal opinion etc on h2g2."
COMMENT and QUESTION: " ...but not on the Guide. Personal, rational, well-argued, responsible opinions are just not allowed. WHY? I would like to read a convincing rational summary of the case 'for' The Rule, not just a restatment that it exists."

QUOTE: "I think trying to use someone's death to attack the editorial principles ..... is slightly underhand and dispicable if you want personal opinion ...."
COMMENT and QUESTION: I welcome any personal opinion, provided it is rooted in reality. This comment demonstrates that some editorial control is vital.
I have no notion of whom you are talking about? Who died? Adams? If so I did not know. I know nothing about him, never read or saw any writing by him. I merely quoted his words, which are presumably still a basic guideline to the Guide.

COMMENT: I am not angry, confused, piqued, sad or in any way perturbed. I do not mind if my contributions are rejected as unfit for the Guide. I just do not care one way or the other - really!
I DO care, however, that a BBC 'Guide for The Future' - which looks like it could be a very useful publication - seeks to exclude all personal opinion, contrary to the expressed wishes of a man who appears to have generated the general notion, laid down a pattern recognised as valuable.
I genuinely think that the guidelines, as they presently exist - demanding a rigorous, almost fanatical exclusion of personal ideas - do a disservice to a marvelous concept.
Pity!
A radical revision of basic thinking is vital, I believe, to the health of the project.

I agree with the otheres who have posted here. But to comment on your last posting:

"Rational discussion by the widest possible number of people is essential."
- True as that might be, PeerReview is *not* the place for it. Please read the guidelines for this forum. These matters are best discussed at <./>askh2g2</.>, soapbox (A452125) or editorial feedback (A388334).

Re: personal opinion in the Guide:
There are some entries in the *edited* guide that carry personal opinion. However, why should it matter that something is not in the *edited* part of the guide? Each and every entry as accessible as any other.

Douglas Adams died on 11 May 2001, see U42.






Anyway, seeing what you posted you might be interested in the Underguide, some form of sub-guide for all the things that are not considered fit for the edited guide, but still deserve attention because they are of a certain quality. See A928929 for more information.

Tube

I think people have said what I was going to say, but I'll try to say it a bit differently.....

Any article you create is part of the guide. From my half-finished article in praise of minority sports to the Virtual Football Supporters Club, to your articles on Catholicism, to.... well, everything.

The *edited* guide is what peer review is for. The edited guide is like a kind of online encyclopaedia, but is only one part of the site, and for many not the most important part. The edited guidelines are artificial, and are not the same as guidelines for good writing, nor are meant to be. Others have given you links to other places to submit writing for feedback or comments. See also the Speaker's Corner (see link from my page). Peer review and the edited guide are not the be all and end all of this site.

I see no reason why you can't get what you want from the site. Take the tour from the front page, as this will give you a much better idea of what is going on

The revolution will not be televised...

Mike OShea will not lead the revolution...

I'm with you Mike!! Let's storm the guide offices and free the guide!

caw.caw.caw.


dave

Look, Mike, you raise some interesting points, but you are raising them in the wrong place! Try to cultivate a healthy plant in the wrong soil and it will not do very well.

Click on <./>Feedback</.>, where you will see this:

"This page is the jumping off point for any and all feedback about h2g2. Whether you want to complain, make a suggestion or ask about the future, this is the place for you"

"Editorial Feedback - For questions and comments about our editorial policies, the editorial process, the contents of the Guide and the future of guidance."

That would be a good place to post your comments and get some attention to them. Peer Review is the wrong place for that.

Entries erroneously submitted to Peer Review cause problems for the very people you are trying to get on your side - the people who look after, and try to ensure the smooth running of, the Editorial process. Peer Review is a very important part of that process, and entries wrongly posted there block the carriageway and at some stage will be gently moved onto the grass verge.

Every kind indulgence is extended to newcomers who may not understand the system (because they haven't bothered to read the guidelines or ask for help), or who (through no fault of theirs) may not be very bright.

But persistent inappropriate posting to Peer Review isn't greatly appreciated after the situation has already been explained a few times, and by several different Researchers, to an obviously intelligent person. This site depends very much on volunteers who mostly have demanding jobs and family commitments, and although their patience approaches that of a saint, their time is limited.

So the best thing to do here is for you to remove this entry from Peer Review yourself, and paste the content into a posting at <./>Feedback-Editorial</.>. If you are unsure how to remove it from PR please ask and people will be glad to help.

Bels

This is not going anywhere in PR.

I suggest a move. Mike please post it to the relevant Forum where you will get the right form of attention.

HELL

Mike - I know it looks like we're all ganging up on you, but we're not. Let's take a moment to run through this all. As far as I can tell, you activated your Personal Space on 18th January, 2003 - at the current time, that's 11 days ago. Already, you appear as if you're marching around telling the site, which has been in existence for over 3 years, that it's got it all wrong.

Let me introduce myself - you've spoken to me already, I know, but I didn't tell you much. I signed up on 21st May 2001. This *in no way* makes me superior to you. Largely, on this site, we are all equals. I'm a Volunteer - I have specific responsibilities. However, I'm still bound by the very same <./>HouseRules</.> and have to try to go about my business in a manner which is appropriate and considerate.

I think that it is probable that your gripe with Editorial Policy is more to do with the fact that you've not yet had time to settle in properly. You are clearly an intelligent person with a lot to offer to h2g2.

Peer Review is provided as a means of getting factual Entries into the Edited Guide. This kind of material is called 'Feedback' - if you post to the <./>Feedback-Editorial</.> page, someone will be more than happy to discuss this with you.

Would you mind terribly removing your submission from Peer Review? You have a point to make, but posting it in Peer Review has resulted in your arguments being drowned in a torrent of criticism. It's not doing your image onsite a great deal of good either.

I will be making my comments on your submission on the Forum hanging from the bottom of the Entry in due course.

If you have any questions yourself that you wish to ask quietly, you can leave me a message on my Personal Space at U177581.

Whoami?
Ace, Guru, Scout & Sub-Ed

Correct me if I'm wrong but did Mike just flame my personal opinion.

Right.
I shall remove to Editorial Feedback and see what happens - see if this turns into a proper discussion of the topic, not just a restatement by current editors that present 'Rules' exist in perpetuity and cannot be changed.
I seek reason and light.
I regret that I give the impression of insensitivity and of seeking to throw my weight about, despite being in swaddling clothes as far as h2g2 is concerned, but please take on board that in real life I am an old guy with a fair amount of experience, that I was not, in fact, born yesterday, or even 11 days ago.
It is quite evident that I point to a situation, a 'rule', that has been perceived as a defect by a number of other people. Are these perceptions simply to be ignored? If real they should be recognised and remedies considered. Already it is apparent that 'underground' moves are afoot. This, to my mind, would split the h2g2 site in an unhealthy way, creating more confusion.
Why not have, for example, on the Front Page, in the same column as the approved Guide Entries, giving equal status, sections headed New Creative Writing, Poetry, Rants & Raves, etc. all subject to editorial control / decency standards of course?
Whoops! I'd better control myself and transfer my original entry to Editorial Feedback.
No more from me in this section. I will delete or withdraw this entry from Peer Review as soon as I find out how to do it.
PEERS - please rejoin the new debate in the proper location. Many thanks.

If you look for your Entry's listing on the Peer Review page you'll see it has a 'remove' link at the end of it.

If you could post us all a link (copy the whole thing from the Address bar in your browser) to the new conversation, that would be great. I promise to act like a grown-up over there if everyone else will .

Whoami?

BTW, the fact that you having been here 11 days was something that I used to indicate that you were *not* unimportant - I said we're pretty much all equal. We were all new to h2g2 once, and some of us more than once!

hi again Mike,

I don't know what Ed Feedback is all about, but i'm not sure it's the 'right place' to submit any entry at all...

I'd have thought the Alternative Writing Workshop was more suitable (though i admit there is much less traffic in that forum).

Did i link to it before? I think so, but just in case - Writing-Alternative



removing from PR isn't too tricky, but it depends which 'skin' layout you're using...

in Brunel there's a little cross next to the title your entry on the main PR page.


spiff

I'll look over into that conversation, Mike. I see you have some good ideas.

About your RL age - I think it should be quite irrelevant as far as the process for Edited Guide is concerned, equal chances for all. It does make a difference however in a discussion like the one you are inciting, in another forum.

Thanks for seeing our point.

To remove your Entry: Go to the Peer-Review page, find your Entry in the list, there's a remove link or an X which will remove this conversation from the Peer Review. Your Entry will remain intact.

When you start a new conversation in the FeedbackForum you can point to this Entry by typing in the A-number of this Entry in the conversation box. Like this:

"Hello have a look at A948990, let us discuss some points..."

It will turn into a link to your Entry automatically. Like here.

HELL

PS: If you want this Conversation can be removed for you, just write a small reply saying you agree that this conversation should be removed from the Peer Review.

Hi all here's the Feedback-Forum link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/F47997?thread=243275&post=2905187#p2905187 HELL