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

I'm a very indifferent hootooite because I spend most of my time on Wikipedia. In a conversation about a Wikipedia article, an issue has arisen as to whether an entry in the Edited Guide meets Wikipedia's standards for reliability so as to qualify as a reference.

In that conversation, I dashed off a quick description of how stuff gets into the Edited Guide. I'm very unconfident about its accuracy. I realize that pages could be written, and probably have been. What I want for the current ruckus is something of approximately this length and level of detail, but with any errors in the following corrected:

A researcher creates an entry in the Guide (i.e., the unedited Guide). It stays there until a Scout selects it as potentially worthy of inclusion in the Edited Guide. It's assigned to a Sub-Editor, who works with the original researcher to get it into shape. It's put up in Peer Review, where anyone can comment, point out errors, suggest improvements, etc. After all that reworking, it still doesn't get into the Edited Guide unless it's approved by one of the Italics. The other people I've mentioned are volunteers but the Italics are BBC staff.

[end my draft]

OK, in the spirit of Wikipedia, have at it, with merciless editing of the foregoing, including rewriting from scratch if necessary.

For anyone who's curious, the Wikipedia guideline about what constitutes a reliable source is contained here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

Thanks for any help you can give!

Hi,

I may not be the best person to comment but that in itself is part of the process. If a researcher wants an entry to go into the edited guide, he puts it up for peer review. Scouts or anybody else may make suggestions. Scouts get to pick entries which are then sub-edited before inclusion in the EG.

It's roughly right, but it goes through Peer Review first (and is submitted by the author, who corrects/alters things whilst still in PR).

After all this a Scout picks, a Sub edits, and then it's posted up with the blessings of the Italics.

----

Accuracy is not guarenteed, but is usually quite high. People will only write about either things they know about, things they are willing to research a lot, or things that aren't really about facts as such (my tongue-in-cheek article about laziness, for example, or Icy North's more accomplished one about No Bill Posters).

The PR process is there to ensure only the highest quality articles make it through, and people put a lot of work into crafting their Entries.

If people are wrong about things after the Entry has been put into the Edited Guide, the Curators (another volunteer post) can make small corrections if the case has been proven, and there is the Update procedure for really big overhauls.
There is also the conversations at the bottom of an Entry, where people can say things like "... actually, this pub has really hone downhill..." or "... also, the battle lost the live of 15 carrier pigeons..." without needing to revamp the article.

I hope this helps.

>>
A researcher creates an entry in the Guide (i.e., the unedited Guide). It stays there until a Scout selects it as potentially worthy of inclusion in the Edited Guide. It's assigned to a Sub-Editor, who works with the original researcher to get it into shape. It's put up in Peer Review, where anyone can comment, point out errors, suggest improvements, etc. After all that reworking, it still doesn't get into the Edited Guide unless it's approved by one of the Italics. The other people I've mentioned are volunteers but the Italics are BBC staff.
<<

I would put it more like this:

>>
A researcher creates an entry in the Guide (i.e. the unedited Guide). It is then submitted to Peer Review (either by the author or by another researcher or by a Scout). In Peer Review, anyone can comment, point out errors, suggest improvements, etc. Usually comments in PR are made by people who have been published in the Edited Guide or who have some knowledge of the entry topic. The researcher who wrote the entry edits it in response to PR feedback. After all that reworking, it is picked by a sub-editor for final polishing (sometimes in conjunction with the author, sometimes not). It still doesn't get into the Edited Guide unless it's approved by one of the Italics. The other people I've mentioned are volunteers but the Italics are BBC staff.
<<

Sorry, I don't know exactly how the Scouts fit into that as I thought people put their own entries in PR. Maybe someone can change my paragraph now.

The Scouts do the picking (and a lot of the PR commenting). I've done a bit ot tweaking on those grounds:



---------

A Researcher creates an Entry in the Guide (i.e. the Unedited Guide). It is then submitted to Peer Review by the author.
In Peer Review, anyone can comment, point out errors, suggest improvements, etc. Usually comments in PR are made by people who have been published in the Edited Guide or who have some knowledge of the entry topic. The researcher who wrote the entry edits it in response to PR feedback.
After all that reworking, it is picked by a Scout and sent to a Sub-Editor for final polishing (sometimes in conjunction with the author, sometimes not).

----------

"If people are wrong about things after the Entry has been put into the Edited Guide, the Curators (another volunteer post) can make small corrections if the case has been proven, and there is the Update procedure for really big overhauls."

But, entries are not routinely updated.

That is true. And there are a lot of early Entries that don't meet the current, stricter criteria.

We're not perfect, but at least we're definitively imperfect.

Vip, do you mean the Scouts pick an entry once it's ready?

Vip has explained the process accurately - the Scouts do indeed 'recommend' entries from Peer Review. (once the entry has met the requirements of the Edited Guide and successfully responded to any queries brought up in the Peer Review process)

The h2g2 editors (employed by the BBC) have the final decision as to whether it can become part of the Edited Guide.

Here is the link to Peer Review

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/PeerReview, although you can reach it from the top of any page.

and here is the link to h2g2's Writing Guidelines

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/Writing-Guidelines

There is a lot of help and support for writers - and the Guide needs more new writers all the time!

Lanzababy (scout)

Many thanks to all who've commented!

lanzababy wrote: "The h2g2 editors (employed by the BBC) have the final decision as to whether it can become part of the Edited Guide." Is that the same position as the Italics?

yes - you can tell who they are because their user names appear in italics

I've posted the following on Wikipedia in the discussion about quoting h2g2:

A researcher creates an entry in the Guide (i.e., the unedited Guide). To have it considered for the Edited Guide, the researcher will post it in Peer Review, where anyone can comment, point out errors, suggest improvements, etc. Usually comments in Peer Review are made by people who have been published in the Edited Guide or who have some knowledge of the entry topic. The researcher who wrote the entry edits it in response to Peer Review feedback. It stays in Peer Review until a Scout selects it as potentially worthy of inclusion in the Edited Guide. It's assigned to a Sub-Editor for final polishing (sometimes in conjunction with the author, sometimes not). After all that reworking, it still doesn't get into the Edited Guide unless it's approved by an editor. The other people I've mentioned are volunteers but the editors (called "the Italics") are staff -- selected, hired, and paid by the BBC. If errors are discovered after the entry has been put into the Edited Guide, the Curators (another volunteer post) can make small corrections if the case has been proven, and there is the Update procedure for really big overhauls.

Any further improvements to my description would of course be welcomed.