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

Entry: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy - A856901
Author: spook - U183955

ok i've put lot of work into this, so please don't be too harsh. it is certainly a lot more detailed then the present entry by DNA about The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, shown by the fact that I have actually included the old entry in this entry.

spook

Just for completeness I also have the records, which vary from the radio series (quite a lot)

I’m not sure this will get into the Edited Guide. I seem to remember reading something about gratuitous entries referring to THGG and DNA would not be acceptable. Well see what the Editors say.

However, a small error:

“Five books make up what is now know as the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy trilogy.”

A trilogy is three books. Tri = three. Triangle, Tripartite, Triangulation.

Five books would be a pentlogy - I think. Pent = five Pentagon, Pentagonal, Pentium.

Stuart

I think you've bounced off your own rake, there, Stuart.

DNA was always proud to refer to it as a 'trilogy', first in three parts, then in four parts, then in five - it went with the subversive nature of the books.

NIce entry spook - I'd be interested to see what Jim Lynn makes of it tomorrow.

B

How about a footnote then in case somebody else comes along and steps on the same rake.

Stuart

Haven't read it yet so won't comment on the content... however...


I personally can't see why an entry on the original book/TV/radio/record/cuddlytoy/fondue set/DVD shouldn't be allowed in the edited guide... after all, it won't be the first review of fictional work to appear on the front page.

One slight problem for me is the title however... An entry on one particular THHGTTG in a completely different THHGTTG - it's going to make the search engine disappear in a puff of logic!

I suspect the only way round this would be something along the lines of:

The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy - The fictional works of DNA

Unwieldy I know, but it might save an awful lot of confusion...

Will read the entry later and let you know what I think


whisky

"Haven't read it yet"

I hope you mean the Entry!

B

good article spook

however there are some typos that a run through a spell checker should pick up and a couple of rather tortured scentences in the paragraph about earth that need the grammar sorting out.

Master B...

Of course I meant the entry


Whisky
(Owner of a copy of all the books, radio series on Cassette, DVD, record, fondue set, cuddly toy...)

Hi spook,

I haven't read this entry, or this thread, but we'd like you to take this entry out of Peer Review. There is already an Edited Entry on this topic, and adding your own work to that entry and putting it in Peer Review is not the way to suggest an update.

It would also be polite if in future you, or any other Researcher, would come and talk to the Editorial team before they add Douglas Adams to any entry, or if they would like to update something that he wrote, because this is, for obvious reasons, a very sensitive subject.

I'm removing his U number from this entry.

Thanks.

Ouch!

Ouch indeed. Hoping you're still subscribed, Mina:

"There is already an Edited Entry on this topic, and adding your own work to that entry and putting it in Peer Review is not the way to suggest an update."

I have been closely working with a couple of entries that are designed to replace some of the pre-Rupert (ie. cr*p) EG, namely A846858 and A847668. Before PRing them, I consulted both Jimster and Jimi X, who both suggested that a PR run would be a good idea for any proposed large-scale updates. Who's right?

B

i'm only gonna reply to Mina's comment right now:

i added DNA to the credits as a sign of respect, as i used what he put in the original entry and some quotes from his book.

i did not add my own work to his entry, i added his entry to my own work, as i felt then DNA put what the hitchhiker's guide was in a good simple and easy to understand way. this is a lot more detailed, and does not make gratuous references, but is a more detailed entry on THHGTTG.

i'm not proposing this as an update, as the other entry should be left in if only as a sign of respect since it was written by DNA and h2g2 was his vision. this is a brand new entry on THHGTTG.

someone mentioned something being added to the title - i think that is best left up to the sub eds if they'd liekt make it more clear or make it more seperate to the other entry.

and mina - maybe before u comment u should actually read the entry and see what it's all about .

i'll leave it in!

spook

Hi Master B, I think you have answered your own question.

I said that PR is not the place to 'suggest an update'.

You say that you 'consulted both Jimster and Jimi X, who both suggested'. Do you see the difference? You asked a member of the Editorial Team and a Researcher who is working closely with the Editorial team *before* PR. This entry was only discovered by a member of the Editorial Team by chance.

on other comments, i'll add a footnote about the trilogy and check for spelling errors later.

thanks for the comments everyone!

spook

Hi Spook,

I see you haven't started the diplomacy lessons yet.

I *did* read (well, skimmed) the entry, and it is quite true that you have added lots of info about Hitch-hiker's in its many different incarnations. It's good stuff.

Mina, i agree with Spook that it was a shame to post quite so curtly without even looking at the entry.

I'd guess you guys in the Towers immediately took it awry that a researcher should take it upon themselves to 'credit' DNA in this way, coupled with the general "Don't write about hitchhikers" policy. Resulting in a knee-jerk (albeit understandable) reaction.

But perhaps you might think again about what to do with this. It may have been better to approach the eds with an offer/request to do a definitive entry on the books. But now that Spook has done all this work, you might reconsider how to use it.

just my thoughts
spiff

no time for diplomacy lessons - GCSE mocks in 4 weeks and loads of coursework. anyway, when i'm talking about my own entry i like to speak my mind, but not being mean and offensive.

>"It may have been better to approach the eds with an offer/request to do a definitive entry on the books."

the reason i didn't do this was because u do not need to request to write an entry on star trek, so why on this?

also, on gratuous rfernces thing: if i right an entry on star trek, i am not being gratuous about Gene Rodenberry or the series. same applies here.

thanks for commenting spiff! i also enjoy encouraging post about my entries! (i really need to look up a few more smilies)

spook

We have no problem with including an entry on the characters etc in the way that spook has done. However, we felt that the way that he has done it is very insensitive. I apologise for flying off the handle, and posting hastily. I was very upset about this, as the thought of Douglas's work being overridden by a Researcher is nto one I welcome. Let me try again.

Using DNA's work in an entry, and adding his name implies that he and this Researcher wrote the entry together, which is not true. If this entry is not intended to be an update, but an additional piece, then the correct procedure is to link to that entry, not copy it. There is not a lot of point in repeating the same thing twice. Therefore the contents of Douglas's original entry should be removed, and a link put in instead.

There is also quite a large quote from the book in this entry, which is worrying, as we do not own the copyright to Douglas's work. There are two options, shorten it. Or use it a paragraph at a time, posted at intervals throughout the entry.

Also Researchers shouldn't get into the habit of saying 'I think that's best left up to the sub', particularly when they are volunteers. It's not good practice, as subs are there to edit, not to write. If other Researchers are suggesting that a change in title is needed, then the author should listen, not leave it to someone ele.


>>And mina - maybe before u comment u should actually read the entry and see what it's all about.
spook, do as you would be done by.

"the reason i didn't do this was because u do not need to request to write an entry on star trek, so why on this?"

Because Douglas Adams wrote the books, and part of his contribution to creating this site was an entry on his own work.

There are many fans of DNA's work who stumble upon this site and, seeing it as a 'fan site' want to do something 'DNAish'. I know that's not what you are doing, but you could have realised that the eds are understandably sensitive about anything to do with DNA and taken the trouble to ask politely before whisking a dead man's entry on his own work, providing a load more info and slapping into PR.

Once again, it is a question of taking the time to think of how others will react to what you are doing. There is a great deal of respect for the author on-site, and you might have realised that what you were doing could be seen as insensitive.

Having said all that, it is quite true that the entry in question is by no means definitive and there appears to be room in the EG for the content you have compiled. It may well be that if you had approached the eds before-hand, they might well have said, 'Yes, great idea, go for it.' Just taking the time to ask first would have helped.

sorry Mina, simpost.