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

I've been thinking about h2g2 more in the past two or three weeks than I have in the past two years. I have paid little attention to h2g2 in the recent past, little enough to not realize how bad of shape it was in. Now I'm glad that there's a real effort to bring the EG back to its feet. But I haven't really participated in those discussions, which as many of you know, is odd for me. I have not written a journal asking my friends to get writing or changed my nickname with encouraging words. Those are fine things to do, but I feel like I have more to say than that the EG needs *more* entries.

h2g2 is, by any standard, a very mature community. It's been around for upwards of 8 years, which is nothing short of an eternity in internet-land. I think that it is finally time for hootooers to stand on our feet and make some bold decisions about our site. We need to say that this guide is ours for the making, and we want to be a part of something special. We need nothing other than a will to live up to our purpose, and we will succeed. I implore all of my friends to not only spend some time writing an entry for the guide, but write an entry that you feel defines what the guide means to you. Spend time in Peer Review, but bring with yourself an openness to the unconventional and a resolution of focusing on the important parts of the entry. Volunteer as a Subbie or Scout, but focus not on bringing an entry up to the standards of a 'typical' hootoo entry... rather help the author realize whatever vision he or she brought to the topic. Encourage new writers, and help them learn what makes this place so special.

I reject the notion that fighting for quality, and for the soul of the guide, is in any way exclusive or elitist. I reject the notion that focusing on quality will reduce the total number of entries produced. h2g2 is a rich soil. Weeds will choke the soil until the ground languishes, and nothing new will grow. But plant a diverse group of flowers and plants, and we will see new growth we've never imagined before. My vision is for an h2g2 that allows the beautiful and the flat, weedy entries to coexist... but hopefully, someday there will be enough beautiful, unconventional entries competing for the sunlight that the weeds ones will learn to bloom.

-Jordan

"...write an entry that you feel defines what the guide means to you"

Very nice.

"...help the author realize whatever vision he or she brought to the topic. Encourage new writers,..."

Even better.

Thanks Jordan, that makes loads of sense.

vp

Well said, Jodan

For those of us who need an inspirational kick up the backside, that might just be all it takes.

Thanks for that, Jodes.

Well said.
Waz

You know I'm 100% with this.
How do we make a difference, then?
We've broadcast a call before, and it was misunderstood.
And the ready sympathisers you have for these ideas are already active coaches and example-setters on the site, and all contribute their writing regularly. Which suggests we're below critical mass.

I'm torn. The site is critically weak; we can all see that. We can help it get better by contributing good quality Entries; we can all see that too. The question is, what kind of Entries?

Sometimes I write straight EG-fit material, but when I do I don't really enjoy it and I feel like I'm pandering to PR's and the EG's prejudices.
Sometimes I write stuff that will never go anywhere near the EG. If the EG really is the central project, though, maybe that's doing nothing to help the site survive.
Sometimes I write stuff on the boundary. It's most fun for me, but I worry that it does most damage.

I guess I'm wondering whether this is a great chance to make the case for change, or a time when anything less than loyal conformity will accelerate the decline.

I would think the stuff on the boundary might be the best stuff, because it generates more feedback in PR, which encourages more participation.

Great sentiments. And I really hope this is merely the start of what the guide can achieve.

*But* (and this probably incorporates more than just me), I still don't know really what I can contribute. I've contributed things in the past, but my best work has always been on the fringes of what the Edited guide //has come// to mean. If I have to write essays in my free time, I'm afraid I don't enjoy it. And I've always felt that anything to do with the Edited Guide as it has developed to the point it did a few years ago, was not very flexible (or at least wasn't with myself). Maybe this just isn't the place for me, and its taken all this time for me to realise it.

I think the inherant problem with the Guides Soul, is that it exists in(or at least was given birth from) a completely different angle. And in order to bring the guide back around I fear that we would have to get back to basics - and that means The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. Otherwise this is just another site containing lots of nice, but slightly boring information. I fear that the basics would not be popular/possible with the current congregration we have, as a lot of the enthusiasts of that movement have gone elsewhere - or have become bitter and/or confused about what they can do (I think I'm just confused ).

Just my

As is usual for me in these conversations I'm confused about what exactly it is that people are wanting. I mean I get it's to do with quality entries vs quantity, but because no-one names names about what is 'bad' (and I understand why) or specifically defines what is 'good' I don't really know where to go with it all.

My current thought is maybe to run some workshops or something highlighting what works particularly well from 'good' entries. That way it's demonstratable to others what can be aimed for. Of course it wouldn't work for everyone to think they HAVE to write in a certain way, but it would offer practical encouragement rather than the vaguer ideas that are being put around.

I just took a little journey back in time through my old Entries, and was surprised to count no less than 17 PR knockbacks down the years. About half a dozen of those, I think I probably agree with

But that still leaves a sizeable clutch of Entries that might have got through in gentler times. Nearly all of them fell foul of the same Guideline, the "don't dramatise your Entries" edict.

I'm minded to try re-enter a few into PR, one at a time and in no particular order. (Starting straightish and getting progressively benter would be a bit manipulative, don't you think?). All the Slants and most of the Low Numbers who rejected them are gone now. The site's need is far greater now than it was then.

This one is a candidate for a first attempt: A2918874

I don't want to do it if it would hurt the cause, though. What do you all think? If you think it's worth a try, should it be as a new version with a fresh-looking date and no mention of past PR, or should it be a straight re-post with old PR thread still attached? Should I go as far as pointing out the history in the headpost?

Has anyone else got a better Entry, if the idea's favoured but the example isn't?

Pin

How about putting it on the PR talk page rather in PR itself? That way we could do a trial run without the stress that seems to happen when people push the boundaries in PR. I reckon put it as a new entry, and mention that it's an old entry but don't go into detail.

I think if you put it in PR unchanged, people are going to say this has already failed PR and that you are wasting time.

I hear you kea, but if you read the attached PR thread, you might conclude that this Entry wasn't failed in PR. It was rejected by an Italic. Now, Italic opinion might well be changing, since the site that's their livelihood is failing.

I also hear you about avoiding the stress when people push the boundaries in PR, implying that the stress is a bad thing, and I don't agree about that either.

But let's get some more opinions, OK?

I didn't say I thought your entry failed PR , but that others might say that.

I'm not going to read the old PR thread yet, because if it goes into PR or elsewhere for comment I'd like to start fresh.

I don't think stress is inherently a bad thing, but I think we have enough of that in PR and that we need more encouraging vibes there. There are people who won't go near PR still because of the stress, and that IMO is why we don't have the critical mass to keep 3 entries on the FP each day.

If your intention is to test editorial policy (and you don't want to change anything much about the entry) then it makes sense to put in it PR. I just don't think we need the potential aggro at the moment, given the efforts to encourage more people to join PR.

I think kea has a nice middle ground there. It's a subject that demands discussion, and when Entries go straight into PR it can often feel like points-scoring when it isn't. You know yourself, Pin, that you've put Entries into PR and the instant reaction has been a half-silent 'here he goes again' - you can almost feel the

Personally, I think that the momentum in PR is just beginning to pick up again and you should keep your powder dry for a couple of weeks. Building and maintaining a certain level of reviewing is, to me, more important right now. Our time should be spent working on the immediate, short-term health of the Guide - commenting and encouraging in PR rather than stirring up debate in it. If you submit something a little bit controversial and it does go pear-shaped, all the people we're just encouraging back into PR as reviewers are going to get a tad intimidated. When Researchers are seeing the EG as central to h2g2 and contributing to PR regularly again - and the early signs are encouraging, with half the entries in review at the moment having been submitted in the last seven days - then I'd say go for it. I'm just worried that a debate in PR itself could nip the new positive vibes in the bud.

I hope you take this in the right spirit; it's a great piece of writing and I supported it in PR last time around, but I think the timing isn't quite right

Now, when you use a phrase like 'I don't want to do it if it would hurt the cause'

Oops, random click... I was trying to read an email... let me finish that sentence

Now, when you use a phrase like 'I don't want to do it if it would hurt the cause', I presume you're talking about the EG, yes?

There. That's better.

I know you didn't say that. Sorry if I sounded tetchy. The point you make in the last paragraph there is the same doubt I expressed in post#8.

I think a lot of this is about critical mass. There are some pretty implacable Low Numbers grizzling away in PR. I don't think the PR talk page is any more sympathetic.

One idea I've toyed with, though it smacks of subterfuge, is to have a group of like-minded Researchers collectively vet an Entry before PR, then enter it, then see if weight of numbers can move the boundaries.

For me, the reason that hootoo is so weak right now is the cliquishness of the old guard. We don't really welcome newcomers, and we certainly don't welcome attempts to use the site in new ways. Unwelcoming plus reactionary is not exactly a winning formula.

Ooops. Slow I was back at kea post#15