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

Entry: Black Eyes and How to cure them - A87801474
Author: Teasswill - U185992

A Flea Market rescue that's turned out a bit different from the original.

Over to you for comment.

This is good. My only suggestion is that you suggest some analgesics rather than just saying "not aspirin". Would paracetemol and ibuprofen be the main recommended ones?

A vast improvement on the original:

Entry: Black Eyes and How to "cure" them - A806519
Author: Just Justin - U200310

<BB<

Amended, thanks.

There's a lot in this that repeats content in the entry about brusing you link to (mine). I think it would be better to include the extra information specific to black eyes into the entry that is already there as an update, rather than have two entries with much the same information. Especially as my entry goes into more detail about some of the content, while this entry brings some extra bits and pieces.

This really is a lot better than the original Entry. Well done!

You seem to have forgotten to add the header tags or paragraph tags when you talk about putting an egg on the bruise.

And at the end you say 'Wear suitable eye protection or use appropriate safety equipment when embarking on any activities involving potentially moving objects, eg DIY, sport, driving.'
I don't think anyone usually wears eye protection when driving a car?

I'll leave that to others to decide. I think there is room for the two different entries, but maybe with amended wording.

Should have made it clear which post that was about.

Probably a lot of tag errors - most sections don't have p tags, but it seems to come out OK. Does it not translate to other skins properly?




No, that would be the safety equipment ie seat belt. I can make that a bit clearer perhaps, if you think it needs it.

In Pliny it reads like this:
Care must be taken to avoid any contact with the surface of the eye as this may cause severe irritation, damage or infection. Hardboiled Egg Either use a whole hardboiled egg, or some like to substitute the yolk for a silver ring, in which case wrap the egg white and ring in a clean cloth.

It's the middle of a single paragraph.

Maybe just remove everything in this entry that repeats in the original entry and see what's left?

Not sure what the resistance is (who are these mysterious 'others' and why am I not an 'other'??) when this is a flea market rescue? So it shouldn't matter whether it is updated into another entry or not?

Ah, the infamous "others", that'll be everyone that hangs around PR then. Not "them" with the extremely long arms that go around at twilight turning on the street lights

I think the entries compliment each other actually. The entry on bruises is nice and concise in a factual way, this one on black eyes is a lot more light hearted. Each entry, with its different writing style would appeal to different people.

Personally I'd like to see the bruising entry expanded out a little, perhaps more in line with the formal way it is presented, giving the Guide a more text book style entry useful for research purposes, with this black eyes one being the more light-hearted, browsing read.

I think I've fixed the GuideML.

ok well, having two entries in the Guide with identical content isn't how I remember it being written and yes I know things change, but what's the point of putting loads of work into an entry if another Researcher ON THE SAME SITE is allowed to just copy it. That's what I was trying to avoid saying, but I see being tactful just isn't getting me anywhere. I'm used to having my h2g2 entries stolen and posted on another site, but letting it happen on the same site I never thought I'd see happen.



I thought the EG was somewhere I wanted to come back to, but clearly it isn't.

This is a good catch from the Flea Market.

There will always be similarities between 'related' articles, this does not mean anything has been copied. We have a number of Entries about Shakespeare without authors falling out.

Links and acknowledgements will be done via sub-editing, ensuring all participants are given their due.

Please, let's keep PR a pleasant experience for all


lil.

And just for the record I hadn't even seen the bruise entry until I had finished & started looking for h2g2 links. All the info I used is available in many places on the internet.

The subject matter may well be the same, but the content is brought across in different ways. The entry on brusies in general is concise and factual, this entry on black eyes in particular is in a more laid back, friendly tone.

Different people learn from different styles of teaching, and we wouldn't be much of an all encompassing Guide if we didn't cater for that. If we removed the author voice, had a singular entry for each topic that was edited and re-edited according to who was running it at the time, we might as well quit and hand the content over to Wikipedia.

You're right though, things have changed since the BBC days. The day to day decisions about the running of h2g2 are made by general consensus of the volunteers, not by arbitrarily following rules laid down by someone who's never even used the site.

Ooh interesting. The article on bruising is one of my favorite guide articles, I like the way it summerises what is actually happening inside a bruise in a nice concise way. This just looks a specific type of bruise, a black eye. I don't think that adding stuff about black eyes to the bruising entry would be good, because I like the length of the bruising entry. Reading both of them, I actually think they are quite different.

This one is about Black Eyes, not about bruises. If someone was looking for information about a black eye, then they may not search for bruises, and visa versa. A black eye is a type of bruise, but this isn't an article about bruising, just a sub-set of bruising.

The article on bruising looks at what happens inside a bruise, complications, things that can cause the skin to bruise more easily and potential treatments, only part of it looks at treatments, and that's quite brief, it only looks at proven treatments.

This article looks at what a black eye is, when to get medical advice, and summerises some medical treatments, and some other treatments that are used, but aren't proven to work.

The content that is the same is really just the bit about the treatments, and that's slightly different, as elevation isn't mentioned on bruising article.

Interestingly I've just looked for the evidence for arnica treatment: I can only find one proper trial and that had only 16 people in it; http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2133.2010.09813.x/full . There is a systematic review of homeopathic arnica, which is different from proper arnica, which showed it was ineffective. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9820349

So I do think that these two articles are different enough, in my opinion.

In terms of things we could add to this article. I would like to so see a mention that black eyes get better anyway, so it's easy to think that black eyes would get better because of whatever you did to them (egg, steak etc), and then you tell your friend to do the same when they have a black eye. So it's no wonder there's a lot of 'folk' treatment for black eyes. I don't personally like the phrase 'unofficial' treatment, because it's just treatment that hasn't been shown to work, it's not like there's a massive body of 'officials' rubber stamping approved treatments. Well there is with drugs, but not with 'non-drug' treatments like this.

I'd also consider linking to the NHS choices advice on black eyes as well: http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Black-eye/Pages/Introduction.aspx

I've read this one and the one on bruises, and like them both as they are. I was going to say that some of the headers and subheaders are off, but I've looked at the code, and they seem fine. (Headers and subheaders can be quite hard to tell apart in Brunel.)

TRiG.

It's good to see a positive debate on h2g2 that has resulted in several researchers re-reading Mina's article on bruising, and comparing it to Teasswill's current Flea Market rescue. Anything that encourages people to read h2g2 in a positive manner can only be good. (Although I am a bit disappointed by the automatic implication of 'stolen content' . I know that Teasswill has had 4 successful Flea Market Rescues and only needs 1 more to get the Scavenger badge. A little while ago Tav and I had a conversation in the Flea Market that pushed the topic to the top of the queue, where Teasswill spotted it and expressed an interest in the subject, and this is the result. I see no reason to assume there was any sinister motivation at all.)

Mina's raised a good question about the degrees of overlap that is allowed in h2g2. Overlap is inevitable to a degree, and it goes without saying that we do not want a host of identical entries, nor do we want to get into the position where someone writes an article on, say, dogs, only to be told that h2g2 has an article on animals, and dogs are animals, so that's an overlap, oh and animals live on Earth, and we already have an article on Earth, and Earth is in the galaxy and the galaxy is in the Universe, so all we really need is one article on the Universe, and everything else will be covered by default. A line has to be drawn somewhere between the two extremes.
Fortunately it's not down to me to draw that line, but I think it is healthy for the community to discuss where they want that line to be, and to take things on an article by article basis.

Mina has written A765713 - Superficial Bruising of the Skin. This is a well-written overview on bruising and how bruises heal.

Teasswill has written Black Eyes and How to cure them - A87801474. This article is about a specific type of bruising, black eyes, and approaches taken to cure them.

Yes, there is overlap, but the specific focus of the articles are different, as are the style of writing. It is, however, true that this year we have updated an Edited article that was a general overview to contain information from an article with a more specific focus (the contents from the article on the Tractor Spotting Game was placed in the 'Entertaining Children on Long Journeys' entry.)

The key question is, are the two entries in question different enough to justify having both articles on them in the guide? Is the subject of 'Black Eyes' sufficiently different for them both to co-exist? If the new article was on 'Bruises of the upper arm*' I think I'd be more inclined to feel that one all-encompassing article would suffice. Yet people react differently to a black eye than to a scraped knee or banged elbow, and there is no more visible bruise. If you bruise a limb, chances are you would be content to let it heal and just hide it beneath clothes, perhaps not even think anything further of it if it doesn't really hurt. But a black eye is a very visible bruise which people find embarrassed and ashamed of and often would try anything to get rid of.

So my personal view is that both articles are sufficiently different that both contribute a valuable addition to the Guide, though am happy to see what the overall consensus is.

<BB<

*In case anyone wondered, it was Arthur Dent who bruised his upper arm in the Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy.