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

Rule ONE on the writing guidelines page is this:

Write About Reality.

That's simple enough. If it's the EG, it needs to be about reality. So why the hell is the featured, blobbed entry on the first page a deconstruction of a bloody fictional ray gun?

It doesn't even point out it's a fictional ray gun from a TV programme. It just throws it out there as if the damn thing existed. I was hoping for an interesting "look how Star Trek tech is moving closer to reality" piece, and instead I got dull fanfiction.

Is this a joke?

Psyc.

What page are you talking about? Link please.

The main offender whas - A55852806, but A56134343 has just dropped into PR.

It's not the style or even the content I have issues with, it's the fact that nobody's bothered to point out this is fiction. I know there's no chance of people thinking we have magic future vision, but at the end of the day it makes us look amateur hour.

It does differentiate us somewhat from wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weapons_in_Star_Trek#Phasers


Are you spending much time in PR these days?

Not really. I'm not spending much time on h2g2. I'd rather expend my creative energy on my own projects - at least I know then that my work will be properly promoted.

I'm also frequently disappointed, if I read along with any PR threads, at the number of poorly written entries, that receive so much attention and work because the author and reviewers are friendly. One researcher in particular writes very poor entries- with absolutely deplorable grammar and syntax skills equivalent to those of a nine or ten year old child or a really ignorant and poorly educated adult. Yet entries written in an interesting manner, about factual topics, requiring little or no editorial work, are overlooked.

(And there was the sub-ed who introduced grammatical, spelling, etc, errors into an entry of mine- the last one I ever did, for just that reason. I don't actually *like* writing, but wanted to contribute, and this person ruined it for me by embarrassing me right smack on the Front Page...)

The EG could be a useful tool for those who wish to research various topics, as well as a springboard for talented writers who wish to develop their skills and creativity, but at times it seems like a vanity project for people who like to collect virtual kudos and "badges". And I say this as someone who has a number of people I like and respect involved in PR and in writing for the EG.

Unfortunately that's true. I think passionate writers are probably in the majority here, but vanity writers seem to churn out a higher volume of entries.

I'll say one thing, the "clique" might be a reality. There's definately a few writers who have an easier time getting things through PR.

I couldn't get the errors introduced to my entry fixed for years- till finally I moaned about it in one of Skankyrich's threads, and he fixed them all for me (bless him). But I shouldn't need to have to appeal to a friend to take care of something like that- the editorial volunteers should have done immediately, and instead took the side of their own.

Who knows- maybe I might have grown into a passionate writer, had the experience been a bit different. It's why I registered with the site in the first place. I loved creative writing and technical writing in high school and sort of "grew out of it"; I wanted to do it again for what I thought was a worthwhile project.

But I just don't have the time or the energy to put into something that may only prove disappointing- I don't have unlimited free time and prefer that my time at this site be enjoyable.

May I also add that I think the authors of both of these Star Trek entries are in fact very good writers, and it's just the topic that's a point of contention? GB writes some fantastic entries about constellations, and every single one is an educational experience for me.

The way to stop them getting into the guide is to point out the errors in PR.

However I accept what you say about some entries - though I have been embarrassed by pointing out syntax errors in an article writting by someone for whom English was not there first language.

(I apologised, then helped him)

it can be difficult for the best of people to put there work through PR
I've done it twice now but came very close to giving up both times
though I am thinking about writing another entry I am unsure as of yet as to whither it shall become a reality