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

Thanks, Marv. I'm off to play Don Quixote against the stupid windmill that is my subeditor. Grrrrrr....

You'd think, if one applies to be a subeditor, one would at least have a passing familiarity with what is known as "fact checking".

Hello,

I, thankfully, am not the subeditor in question

However I would just like to defend a lack of fact-checking (and please note I have no idea which subeditor or entry you are referring to). When a researcher for the guide decides to write on a very specific / technical topic it is often impossible for the poor subeditor to check minor details and it is down to trusting the author did accurate research.

Thank you for listening to this pointless rant!

I think that FG is more concerned with them *changing* facts from what she wrote. If I am an expert on something and write about it and it is changed I would be mad, if I were only a novice at it and it was corrected it is OK. POV problem as usual.

Yes, I can understand that would be *really* annoying!

That is exactly what happened. I had supplied the correct information and the subeditor changed that to the wrong information. Stylistic differences I can understand (although I think I have a good writing style and hate it to be altered--but then, who doesn't?), misinformation that I supplied I can understand, but the correct information?

Anyway, I left a note for Peta, and she and Anna corrected the blunders for me. Keep in mind I'm not denigrating the subeditorial process as a whole, I just think the subeditors should be a little more careful. After all, they took it upon themselves to do this job. They should do it right. Volunteerism is no excuse for shoddy work.

It happens. I have had good luck with most of my entries. Not all however.
BTW drop by my page some time and read my article How to drink in Utah.

I read both the edited entry and the non-edited one. I don't think it was necessary to seperate "Forwarned" as a section consisting of one sentence. Other than that...what do you think of the changes?

I was a little mad the night I first wrote that piece. So some of the comments I made (pretty thing attached to my wallet) were unneeded and removed by the subbie. That was ok. The article is about the same after the edit so it was nto bad. I did not like the Moab edit tho.

Why not?

*runs back to the Chapel to check out the Moab article*

The edited entry reads very well...but what's the story with the animation? I think whoever did that got their wires crossed. That, or they didn't bother to read the article. Nowhere does it mention Denver, football, basketball, beer, or college graduates.

It makes me wonder what they have in store for dear old Missoula.

Dancing prunes, maybe?

The bullets they added make it look strange, and I did not put in the links to other articles

Cool! Simultaneous posting!

On mine, I had a number of links to outside sites for the University of Montana, the Forest Service, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Missoula Maggots Rugby Club, and my employer's (i.e. the State) own guide to fishing and skiing in Montana. All were removed. And they were great links!!

You can read both the pending article (in the left-hand column) and the original (in my biography on the main space) on my page.

1904?!?!?! So, my prostitutes were here before Lewis and Clark? That changes my whole paper
(sobs loudly and narrowly decides not to commit suicide)
well, folks, it seems that yes indeed the subeditor REALLY messed up. And FG, you don't even *talk* like that! It was fine the way it was...and it seems facts are not in evidence. Got any satisfaction yet?

Mostly, although William Clark is still listed as a Lieutenant.

Sheesh. It makes one want to apply to be a subeditor.