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

I've sub-edited 196 entries now, although only 184 of them have been published so far. The other 12 are in the pending pool, waiting to be published.

It's an interesting job. Most entries take about 20 minutes to sub-edit, and the job basically just involves a quick read through, fixing any spelling mistakes and punctuation along the way, then a read of the Peer Review conversation and a check that all the links are to appropriate Edited Entries.

Sometimes, of course, it involves a lot more work - some entries are unclear or even contradictory. I find it is a good thing to just mark the sentences I'm not sure about and come back to them later. Usually if I come back the next day, it is clear what needs to be done. This sort of an entry could take a few days.

Very occasionally we get the mammoth entry which is written by someone without a good command of English. This can take weeks, but I've never been put under any pressure by the Eds - they're always happy to wait, as they know I'm doing my best.

When I started sub-editing, it was a bottleneck in the system. There were many entries waiting to be sub-edited, and many more with the sub-editors, and only a few ready for publishing. I think we've sorted that problem out now.

The bottleneck is now in writing the entries - there are not enough new entries being written, in my opinion - perhaps because people think that they are not capable of writing well enough. If you're thinking of writing something, don't worry about how good your command of English is - we can easily sort that out. The most important thing is that you pick a subject that is interesting, factual and not too personal.

I've two entries in Peer Review at the moment (Sirius and The Nautilus) and am working on writing another one. I'm also trying to get back into the habit of writing regular articles for The Post. I think one a week for the new Post format should be achievable.

It would be nice to write more entries, and I have ideas for loads and would have plenty of scope because I can cover subjects that are typical of Germany and wouldn't be dealt with by people elsewhere, but my problem is the standard of research. (My English should be up to scratch .) I have no idea how GB finds out all the stuff she puts in her entries (in your case, Gnomon, I put it down to an infinite amount of knowledge in your head!).

Fried eggs was easy to research - I have eggs and a frying pan in the kitchen!

As far as I can remember, the first entry I did any research for was Richard Strauss, which my records show was the 19th entry I wrote. So only the first 18 entries were straight out of my head.

I read books and look at websites for research. Often you can find information in other places. For example, I was trying to see was it true that Coca-Cola had invented Santy Claus's red suit. I found an old painting in the Irish National Art Gallery dating from long before Coca-Cola with one person wearing a red "Santy Hat" as a symbol of winter. That was much more convincing than reading it on any website.

When subbing, do you check for plagiarism?

It depends on the style. If the whole thing is riddled with grammatical and spelling errors, I tend to assume it is original. If it is flawless prose and I don't know the author, I'd pick a few random phrases and search for them on Google.

Giving rise to the Inglourious Basterds syndrome.

You plagiarise all you want, and then mangle the spelling, thereby 'personalising' the creation.