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

I wasn't aware of that delusion earlier. I just remember you being active in Peer Review. You wrote an entry about your college marching band, iirc.

Icy, this conversation isn't about me, and I'm not at all interested in talking about me, but you seem to be, so I'll unsub.

HN and Icy, you brought up an interesting point about entries, if I may...

Who should write about what?

Now, I agree with HN that you don't have to be a certified expert in a subject to tackle it. But I think your background affects what aspect of the topic you want to approach.

Example: I was a menace in the chemistry lab, and the despair of my proifessors. But I write about patent medicines, say. When I do, I'm not really interested in the chemistry - and I'd leave the statistical analysis to our real experts, like Woolly Mammoth.

I write about the social and historical aspects of the patent medicine phenomenon. That's something I know how to research.

Maybe, if you want to have an entry on placebos, you either let a couple of people tackle it together, based on what they like to research, or...

Let different people write different entries about different aspects of the phenomenon. Such as, 'the medical verdict on placebos', 'placebos in popular advertising', 'the history of placebos', etc?

Yes, I agree that anyone can research and write about any subject. I'm certainly no expert in most of the entries I've written. It's the purpose of Peer Review to assure the entry's quality.

Sadly, Peer Review is also suffering as participation wanes. The sooner we get the site relaunched the better.

You could pop over and comment on my Mass Run entry

And and excellent entry it was too!