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

Douglas Adams says in his introductory welcome to h2g2, "You can create your own Guide Entries containing anything you want, from your opinions of world events to a description of your home town, and it all goes to make up the h2g2 Guide ..."

NOW - at what point was it decided that personal opinions would NOT, in fact be welcome?

If anyone has an opinion he or she usually says, "My opinion is as follows .." or "I believe this to be the case.." or "It appears to me that this is the truth.." There is then no doubt: this is the opinion of a particular contributor.

At the sight of such personal pronouns contained in my first submitted entries comments by the editorial team immediately appeared, full of dire warnings about the inadmissability of such horrible words. Their inclusion could prevent publication in the Guide. It was as if a team of friendly but determined dobermans had been unleashed - trained to react to such a horrific, personal approach.

Why has Douglas Adam's welcome been so altered? Is it now judged to be rude, unfeeling and possibly egotistical for someone to have personal opinions?

I am not now talking about rants and raves. I am talking about profoundly held viewpoints logically, constructively, and courteously expressed.

Must everything be presented in a non-attributable, distilled format, a series of technical articles excluding all human attributes, reactions and emotions - as well as opinions?

Such an alteration to Douglas Adams' invitation does not, I believe, establish a sound basis for vital, interesting writing. Composition by Committee will assuredly and eventually create a numbing boredom, the BBC Guide becoming about as attractive as the average encylopedia, and as infrequently consulted.

Remember the fine looking row of printed enclopedias that gathered dust on our shelves at home before they were eventually dumped or sold in a car-boot sale? Does digital dust not exist?

Wake up dear friends! The danger is there! Argue the opposite, if you dare. Convince me in public that Douglas Adams was wrong - or lighten up on this total prohibition of the expression of opinions in the First person!

PS: I do not argue for abolition of Editorial Control. There ARE a lot of crazies out there - where I am!

I suspect this is going to develop into an almighty war of words, so I think I'd better get my word in first.

A lot of journalism (including h2g2) can enmesh opinion without losing its factual content. Virtually any Edited Entry written about the author's favourite pop/rock group will confirm that. It's just a case of using language appropriate to the project. A phrase such as "attracted huge acclaim", or "was widely regarded as excellent" transparently conceals the author's admiration for the subject matter without having to revert to the forbidden first-person. Admittedly this sort of conformity is precisely the sort of thing that you are protesting against, but society in general has a deep mistrust of individualism.

As for the 'dryness' of the Guide, I have had a good rant about this on a number of occasions. You're right, no-one wants to read technical journals or dry political history. However, it is quite possible to write an entry on these subjects in a lively manner, so go ahead - that's what we'd like see more often in Peer Review. And Editorial Control can even be bypassed in extreme cases (see the completely unwarranted bad joke I managed to slip in at the end of A882911)

B

I think Douglas Adams was talking about the WHOLE Guide, not just the Edited Section.

Mike, I think you are overestimating the Edited Section of the Guide. The Edited Guide Entries are meant to be about factual stuff, like an Encyclopaedia. One should be able to read it in 30 years and still get the picture. For this reason it is virtually impossible to let fiction in, or personal musings that remain localized in time.

There is enough room for rants, poetry, opinions etc. Maybe you're not long enough in the h2g2 community, so you probably have not found out the other sections, like Askh2g2.

I, personally, concentrate on the Peer Review / Edited Guide scheme. Other people concentrate on other areas. Did you already see these other areas Mike?

HELL

Here's my :

I can't help thinking that everyone who has got involved in this project should have known exactly what it was about before they contributed anything. Otherwise there is not much point in making a contribution in the first place, as chances are, it's going to be turned down. Now, it's perfectly possible that someone might have contributed the wrong type of material for an Edited Guide entry, but I personally would have expected an honest admission of misunderstanding in response to well-meant advice from volunteers or staff.

Instead, the entire orchestra gets told to change its tune for the benefit of one off-key musician. This isn't fair on the community, especially not those contributors who have striven to give the Guide its distinctive tone through adhering to the guidelines as best they can. These guidelines have been in operation since the Guide started up, thanks to DNA himself. These aren't hidebound restrictions put in place by the BBC for self-protection: they serve primarily to differentiate the Guide from other online community sites.

Those of us who have, nevertheless, contributed opinion pieces. We do so in the Post, or at Speaker's Corner. I personally believe that factual articles that are boring are so not because of their factual nature but because they were badly written in the first place. And, God knows, there are plenty of those.

There are many non-boring factual articles too BTW, but you have to search a bit...

HELL

QUOTE: "I personally would have expected an honest admission of misunderstanding in response to well-meant advice from volunteers or staff.
Instead, the entire orchestra gets told to change its tune for the benefit of one off-key musician."
COMMENT: The fact that the person who proposed this discussion has removed it to the present location indicates that he accepts the advice of volunteers and staff, courteously given and accepted. The proposer is not an off-key musician telling the entire orchestra to change it's tune. Members of a civilised digital community are asked to think again about a rule that would appear to considerably restrict free expression of thought and opinion. Surely the Edited Guide should reflect the ethos of the Guide as a whole?

QUOTE: "The Edited Guide Entries are meant to be about factual stuff, like an Encyclopaedia. One should be able to read it in 30 years and still get the picture. For this reason it is virtually impossible to let fiction in, or personal musings that remain localized in time."

COMMENT 1: My two articles are not fiction. Neither are they musings: they are a serious attempt to confront the reality of attitudes that affect mankind - has done for centuries, and is only likely to change slowly, over many years.
Collective government and organisational attitudes and procedures are as 'factual' as any physical phenomena. They are perhaps more important, and should be included in the Edited Guide.

COMMENT 2: All contributions are localized in time. Facts change. Perceptions change. Editorial scrutiny may not cope adequately with such changes, whatever the nature and content of an Edited Guide entry.
SUGGESTION 1: This problem of relevancy might be partly resolved by including an information panel at the foot of each entry, naming the main author and each editor, as a matter of courtesy, with dates as appropriate.
The reader might then judge the relevancy of the information until the piece is further updated, and will recognise that while any viewpoints expressed are the responsibility of the main author there is an implied assurance that independent editing excludes grevious error in fact or opinion. The BBC has a tremendous reputation of impartiality and truthful reporting to uphold. Nothing suggested here is intended to detract from this.
SUGGESTION 2: I realise that some h2g2 researchers, scouts, etc. are affronted by my approach. I am seen as an ingnorant oul' Irishman rushing in and seeking to destabalise a good, working website, without familiarising himself with the project!
I'm not this of course - seeking to destabilise a good, working website I mean (the rest could be true to a degree).
h2g2 is obviously a worthwhile project, but at the risk of consolidating my negative image I have one further suggestion to make.
It is evident that many people share the opinions that I espouse, and I am disturbed to find that there are underground notions, born out of frustration, which threaten what has been achieved.
An underground will always be there. It's healthy.
But I think there is one way in which such disturbance may be lessened and directed: i.e. by the inclusion, on the h2g2 Front Page, in the same column as the Edited Guide (to promote the notion of being equally valued) of a page dedicated to 'New Creative Writing' (with internal subhead offshoots such as 'Poetry', 'Fiction', 'Drama' etc.) and another page entitled 'Rants and Raves' - all subject to editorial control.
I realise that similar types of page do exist, but they are isolated and difficult to find, whereas prominently featured as suggested 'New Creative Writing' could encourage new writing, discover new talent, while 'Rants and Rave' - like city centre graffiti boards - could serve as frustration vents for the cerebrally challenged, as well as expressing creative gems such as the query that appeared along the Falls Road, Belfast, a few years ago. during the misery of the troubles : "Is there Life before Death?"

quote: "My two articles are not fiction. Neither are they musings: they are a serious attempt to confront the reality of attitudes that affect mankind - has done for centuries, and is only likely to change slowly, over many years."

Are you honestly saying that believe your second article belongs in an encyclopedia?


dave

So, the Edited Guide IS an encylopedia?
I thought it was intended to be much more than this.
Yes, in answer to your question, I think my second article: 'Authority in the Catholic Church - Use and Abuse' confronts a real, live issue in a thoughtful, constructive manner.
Properly edited it would be a useful background item to refer to in the light of constant interest in the activities of Catholic churchmen, e.g. the forced resignations of prelates in America and Ireland, repoprted in the BBC2 feature 'Suing the Pope', broadcast just a few hours ago. (29/01/03: 11.20 pm.)
'Suing the Pope' is relevant to the 'Abuse' and failure aspect of Authority in the Church.

G'morning Mike. You have some good ideas. I agree that the Edited Guide, which is just a part of the Guide, gets a bit too much attention. I.e. it is on the front page etc.

Some of your suggestions are quite good. Let's have a look at them:

"This problem of relevancy might be partly resolved by including an information panel at the foot of each entry, naming the main author and each editor, as a matter of courtesy, with dates as appropriate."

There's is already a fact-box attached to every Entry saying who wrote the stuff (with a link and all that), who edited it and when it was finished.

"The reader might then judge the relevancy of the information until the piece is further updated,"

Yes. I do that. Before the site went BBC the Entries had a different quality. Some are quite dodgy and would never make it into the Edited Guide today... I usually take a glance at the date of writing, and in some cases I go: "Ah, OK, the old ones, maybe it's time for updating" - But you know, by then it was a smaller community, and you have to get things going. It is also my impression that the standards vary with time, for example, there are periods where there is less input and periods with more input, but you still have to take 5 Entries a day in. So what happens if a scout can choose between 5 sterling Entries during a prolific period or 2 good ones and 3 dodgy ones during the drought... Well, this variation is more subtle than what I describe, of course, but it's there.

"and will recognise that while any viewpoints expressed are the responsibility of the main author there is an implied assurance that independent editing excludes grevious error in fact or opinion."

See? That's what the Edited Guide, in my opinion, is not about. It's not about viewpoints. Or, to say the least, as little viewpoint as possible - of course we live in a society and are all biased to some extent... But people can try to filter that out. I do.

SUGGESTION 2: I realise that some h2g2 researchers, scouts, etc. are affronted by my approach. I am seen as an ingnorant oul' Irishman rushing in and seeking to destabalise a good, working website, without familiarising himself with the project!

Well, no way. Your points are good. You have just posted them to the wrong Forum back then. - And, yes, there is some truth in your following sentence: "I am seen as an [...] Irishman rushing in [...] without familiarising himself with the project!". This is the impression I get when you suggest to add the 'date of writing' because it is already there. This is the impression I get when you post this kind of suggestion into the peer review. That's what I meant when I said you might want to take a look at other fora.

This is partly due to the emphasis of the Edited Guide on the Front page. You suggest:

"But I think there is one way in which such disturbance may be lessened and directed: i.e. by the inclusion, on the h2g2 Front Page, in the same column as the Edited Guide (to promote the notion of being equally valued) of a page dedicated to 'New Creative Writing' (with internal subhead offshoots such as 'Poetry', 'Fiction', 'Drama' etc.) and another page entitled 'Rants and Raves' - all subject to editorial control. I realise that similar types of page do exist, but they are isolated and difficult to find, whereas prominently featured as suggested 'New Creative Writing' could encourage new writing, discover new talent, while 'Rants and Rave'"

I agree. I wouldn't call your input a disturbance though. But I think you have a good point here. The other hot-spots are a wee harder to find. The Edited Guide is right there. Maybe we should wait for some official response...

HELL

IMO, I don't think that confronting "a real, live issue in a thoughtful, constructive manner" belongs in an encyclopedia. In my experience encyclopedia's are for history, and generally accepted facts. You don't pull out the encyclopedia to find what's happening in current events. Now remember, this is just the EDITED guide. It would be great to have an article on this in the other sections of the guide - perhaps the Post (the periodical)?

That being said, an article on the history of the catholic church would be a fantastic addition to the guide. But there is already an entry entitled "Roman Catholicism" A533828, so you would have to read that and make the new entry complementary to that one.

dave

______________________________________________________________________
I have deleted my initial entry in Peer Feview, and as I understand it the comments that appeared there can still be read at A948990 - for those who wish to look at them and take them into consideration.
[Oh dear! The peer Comments appear to have disappeared. What a pity. They could possibly contribute to the discussion. I am miffed that they are not available. Anyone help about this?]
______________________________________________________________________
Dave,
You refer to the Edited Guide as an encyclopedia. I regret this, if it is so, as encyclopediae tend to be deadly dull - traditionally bought by concerned parents so that children will have access to information needed for school projects.
This no longer necessary of course, for there are a wealth of digital encyclopediae on disc and throughout the internet. I had thought that the Edited Guide would have been more lively and bursting with natural humour and wit.

The 'Edited BBC Encyclopedia' therefore (let's give it the full title some would appear to be content with) is, you believe, 'for history, and generally accepted facts'. You also go on to say that 'You don't pull out the encyclopedia to find what's happening in current events.'

I am not suggesting that the BBC Edited Guide/Encyclopedia should cover the news, but I do suggest that it should contain entries that reliably inform about the background to world events.

For example, an article about 'Authority in the Catholic Church - Uses and Abuses' could provide valuable information about the root origins of this organisation and how its leaders have behaved in practice throughout history. The word 'abuses'in the title would indicate a critical attitude, and such criticism would have to be fair and factual. Naturally it would be complementary to the entry entitled "Roman Catholicism" A533828 which outlines the teachings and aims of the Church, without reference to failures. (I have read this entry BTW, and appreciated and commented upon it in the proper place).

No organisation is above criticism - e.g. an Edited Guide Entry entitled 'The British Parliament - Mother of Parliamentary Democracy', outlining the considerable achievement of creating such a system, could be balanced by a further Entry entitled 'The British Parliamentary System - Achievements and Defects'.

Reading such articles about both organisations would provide valuable background information to breaking news stories about malfunctioning bishops and the current struggle to reform the House of Lords.

You say that the Edited Guide is 'for history, and generally accepted facts'. yip! I agree! But not merely about dead old things like 'Stonhenge' (no matter how interesting such stone structures are).

"I had thought that the Edited Guide would have been more lively and bursting with natural humour and wit."

Many entries are. For example, have a look at some of the entries listed under "Have you missed?" on the Front Page (one of which is mine, he said immodestly....)

Obviously not all entries have to be funny - some of my favourites are about events and places I wouldn't otherwise know about, and others are accessible accounts of complex stuff. My absolute personal favourite article ever is A513604 (How to be Pretentious), which is nothing if not witty, but also follows the edited guide rules.

Have a look around "Have you Missed?" and see what's possible.

Otto

'"I had thought that the Edited Guide would have been more lively and bursting with natural humour and wit."

Many entries are. For example, have a look at some of the entries listed under "Have you missed?" on the Front Page (one of which is mine, he said immodestly....) '

Ditto.

Also, if you want an Edited Guide article which has a fair amount of opinion in it, then read another one of mine, A784046. The main point about this article is that the opinionated content supports the main subject matter, not vice versa.

There've been a number of posts recently in different threads and from different people suggesting that the EG is an encyclopedia. I think this is just the personal opinion of those people. I have never seen it offically described in that way - someone please correct me if I've missed it. I assume, in fact, that the ptb have deliberately avoided using that word.

I have never thought of it either as an encyclopedia or as an alternative to one, but as an additional resource, of rather a different character to what we normally think of as an encyclopedia. To me it's more like a good magazine in style - interesting and varied, and a mix of conventional and unconventional wisdom.

The guidelines say 'don't try too hard to be funny', but at the same time natural unforced humour is welcomed. To me that's just about right.

Well and it's about factual stuff not fiction or poetry. Kind of like an Encyclopaedia - but totally different.

Hmmmmm....

HELL