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

I noticed that the names of things are changing a bit eg 'comment' was used in the Permissions document instead of 'post', and 'writer' instead of 'researcher'. Approved Guide instead of EG.

Is this intentional? Have we had any discussion on this yet?

I think language is important to culture (crucial in fact) and we need to take some care about making changes. Which isn't to say that some things shouldn't change. But I'd like to see h2g2 cultural specifics retained where we can, and care taken not to assume other cultural languages too much (eg from FB, twitter etc). There is a degree of natural change anyway, but it's also good to be aware of what we are doing.


This is a post btw, not a comment

Interesting, interesting points. I'm not sure what document you're referring to kea.

I did consciously tweak the language in the GBD to make it more contemporary; bloggers write blog posts and readers comment on them, for example, and I used that language to make things less scary for any external audiences. The GBD had several potential audiences. These were: researchers, people who read the site regularly but aren't signed up, but also the BBC's corporate types who are vaguely aware of h2g2 but who've probably never got past the Front Page, the Post and Ask, and also anyone interested in working with the community, and of course people bidding against us.

The shift from Edited to Approved was one the BBC made here on the site, and reflected honestly the change in how the Italics were working and what they were doing with the entries.

The shift from researcher to writer is a really interesting one: personally I think it is more inclusive, allowing people to write opinion pieces, reviews, anecdote, humour, etc. But I accept that "researcher" is unique to h2g2 and should probably be the term of choice.

You are right about language and culture, and the importance of our culture at this time.

Ben

I prefer the term Edited. h2g2 had Approved entries to start with, and most of those have been demoted, so going back to Approved I can't understand it EXCEPT that from memory the Editorial tools still use the term 'approve' which makes me wonder if the change was so the outside reflected the inside, making it easier for new owners/staff to learn how to use them.

Of course my knowledge is around 5 years out of date, so that might not be true at all any more, but still. Makes you wonder.

I don't think Approved shows the amount of work goes into each entry, and not just by the author.

As for writer vs researcher I much prefer researcher.

To me, a writer is almost synonymous (or at least it used to be until I improved my grasp of the English language thanks to h2g2) to author. A bit daunting, in other words.

Whereas the word researcher thrilled me - researching implied discovering, exploring (who hasn't imagined him/herself as a modern Stanley?). And with all those collaborative entries back when I joined, I felt I didn't have to research an entire subject, I could simply add my

Pity, I thought this thread would be about the much more interesting issue of opening up the site to non-English submissions.

That would be good too -- scary for us monoglots but I think it should happen.

I prefer 'Edited' to 'Approved' too.

I know it's slightly ambiguous for us here when we talk about our two-stage editing process, but there is a finality to an article which is simply termed 'Edited'. After all, we have Editors and an Editorial function, so why shouldn't the final output be 'Edited'.

I also prefer 'edited'

As for researcher let us not forget that h2g2 is a guide. Anybody can write but in order to create a guide you need to research

Researcher feels a good fit together with Approved
Writer with Edited

Both have a sort of exclusive feel
Both have a feeling of emphasising The Guide over the community

For me it'd be Member (unless someone has a better idea... Taff?)

'Comment' isn't always what I do.
Post is, as on a notice board or in a lettter.

As for the language thing, Ben's > -- scary for us monoglots < hits the button but what could we do?
From this chair, it's a case of encouragement for the member, discouragement of sarcasm.

- and, just maybe, a forum for the purpose? A growing base for actual weaknesses.
Now there's a task a Community Editor could take on - to keep it swept.

Brekkie time but just before I go,

Wherever we find ourselves, we should take one bit with us:

Nation Shall Speak Unto Nation



Now, is there a dry eye in the house?

'As for the language thing, Ben's > -- scary for us monoglots < hits the button but what could we do?'

We learn to live with it. Seriously. Most of the world already does. Without being tied to a national broadcaster's apron strings I see no reason to arbitrarily insist on one language.

Just throw it wide open. 99% of the time it would be self-organising anyway - I'd imagine people would reply to a thread in the language it was started in. If it's one they don't know - well, learn it or read something else.

Hmm, I suspect I'm one of the perpetrators of this language adjustment.

Honestly, in writing some of the documents I've made for c2, sometimes it is just repetitive to use "Edited" and "Researcher" over and over. In those cases, I use them somewhat interchangeably with "Approved" and "Writer", though I can understand why that's confusing.

There are also some circumstances where one makes more sense to use than another. For instance, in the stage between Recommendation and Sub-Editing, an entry isn't "Edited" but it is "Approved". Probably the correct term would be "Recommended", in fact. Also, in the Writing Guidelines, it makes sense to me to refer to a "Writer". After all, it is not and never has been the "Researching Guidelines". Furthermore, as the Guide opens up to different styles of writing, as I hope it will, "Researcher" will become outdated in its literal meaning.

For c2, I have only been intentional in using different names in two cases. My (controversial ) proposal for volunteer groups involved a name change by necessity. Also, my (similarly controversial) idea for a unified review forum mandated a name change. But I should note that those are just my whacky ideas, not reflecting the wider community or the interim committee at all.

Rest assured that no one would dare make a big name change without a consensus among the community. After all, I must admit a certain fondness for the term "Researcher". It has its roots in HHGG, and I can recall thinking it was really cool to be Researcher 201497 when I signed up.

Language

KB: >>We learn to live with it ... throw it wide open. 99% of the time it would be self-organising anyway... <<

Try moderating that little lot!
Just for starters, someone preaching sedition in Welsh...

Can't see it being anything but English as she is writ - unless a dual thing of new owner's language & a forum for English...

I don't think we need to reinvent the wheel on this one, though. The web's an international medium - there are countless examples of multilingual communities. How do they do it?

Take Wikipedia, for instance. It has almost 280-something languages.

Point taken. Paradigm adjustment required. Hmm

Facwebook doesn't seem to have problems either (not that we shouyld try to copy neither Fb nor Wiki as such)

True, although we can learn from their experiences.

The moderation point's worth thinking about, of course. But like so much else, it's impossible to tell what way it will go at the minute. It depends on the legislation where the new owner's based, for one thing.

Hmm, wonder if this is worth a thread of its own. We're sort of going at cross purposes in this one now...

Yes, please, someone start a separate thread on the multi-lingual thing.