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

Not sure who still reads these journals - haven't posted one in years...

I wonder if I'm the only one who's _not_ looking forward to the possibility of the site running itself...

Talk of committees, elected moderators, new types of volunteer staff and how to choose them... All seems to me as if it would lead to a divided community - the 'in-crowd' and the plebs...

I'm very much afraid that without some kind of 'disinterested' management to whom all users answer equally, this is going to go down hill very quickly...

Ah well - it's only a website (copyright Mark Moxon)

You aren't the only one. It's not an ideal solution to the sale of h2g2. We hope it's better than there being no h2g2, but, as you say, a formal owner, Powers That Be, would probably have an easier time of managing the community than the community themselves.

Of course, we may not like the way an owner want to do things, but that's easier than not liking your fellow Researchers' vision or watching the site tear itself apart.

Those sorts of fears are very real, although we are hoping that by talking about them that they are the worst case scenario.

We seem to have had something of a divided community for years though... At least the possibility of the community run version of the site has the potential to be responsive to the wishes of the wider community, rather than just sidelining and ignoring the community in its entireity Also, from what I've seen the comittee (as it stands at the moment which is only the interim version until a community elected version), there isn't really any great ego-driven desire amongst any of them to 'run the site', in the sense of dominating and wite washing over community itself... In fact most of them seem to be quite terrified by the thought that such a thing would happen and entirely take over their lives... anyhow... nighthoover will be back at any moment to take over

Whisky, I'm subscribing to this, because I think you are right, there is potential for a real problem here. One of the things this whole escapade has shown me (as 9/11 did too) is that there are vast areas of h2g2 I've never explored. It's a mix between a venn diagram and a lava lamp...

I'm still here Whisky! As it seems are a few others.

Having been on both sides I would prefer the site to continue to have The Powers That Be. Or me be elected Boss of h2g2 Forever perhaps.

Someone needs to have the Final Say and that's better coming from a paid person who can go home at the end of each day.

That is the definitely the preferred option.

The c3 bid will only win if the other bids are bad, so we're hoping that at least one person puts forward a working plan with staff and stuff. It will mean the commercialisation of the site but, to be honest, a bit of direction and focus like that will probably do us good.

I am really hoping that we could manage without dividing the community too much.. we've always been slightly divided, we've had the ones who like the Eds and the ones that rebel. The ones that like the Guide and the ones that rebel against the rules. The ones that contribute to the EG v the community.

There are other community websites that have changed to a model that runs themselves, we were contacted by one of them and offered advice in the very early days.

I've very much taken the approach that I want to keep everyone happy, by finding a middle ground that everyone is comfortable with. I was really impressed by how we reached consensus about the Unified Guide Theory. I really want to continue that spirit of co-operation.

I think that we'll need all the help that we can get and will want everyone on board to help out. Even if we don't get alone we'll need everyone and hopefully the fact we're running it ourselves will pull us together a bit.

We'll have elections every year and if people don't like the actions of the Eds then they can always stand next year.

What's a Unified Guide Theory?

Try A81667227. It was one of the first things that people agreed on in the Magrethea project.

All is explained in the Great Big Document..this among other things of course.

www.tinyurl.com/noohootoodoc

In short UGT is a way of combining UG entries, and EG entries whilst making it easy to identify which is which, so that those who want to continue to contribute to the EG can still do, and those that want to do both can do.
This is a short entry Happy Nerd made on it..

A82700048

Ah, the thing where the EG becomes everything on h2g2, including fiction? Yes, that's when I went off the whole idea. I'd really not be interested in contributing to that, not because I don't like it, but because I stayed on h2g2 because of the EG, I like it how it is. If it moves forward, that's fine, but I'd want to take my work off. Currently I've given the BBC permission to use it, but no-one else.

As for 'people agreed', well, some people didn't.

Well the UGT is something that is currently a work in progress and would require even more debate.

I see it as being the fact that the EG stays the way it is, but the highest quality of the other writing is also showcased in a way that carries equal status, but crucially was easy to tell apart from the factual stuff. A prominent different colour header for instance. It would be easy to just read factual entires, easy to just write factual entries, and easy to search for them.

(Very few people submitted fiction to the UG anyway, if I remember correctly).

I had wondered where you voice was in the discussions Mina.

I remember that you commented on the Stockholm Thread, saying exactly what you posted there, that you wouldn't want to be involved if the EG changed to include fiction. It really emphasised how we had to take into account the fact that lots of people like the guide to be a reliable factual guide where everything is Peer Reviewed. I'm one of those people btw.

If I recall correctly the plan to just incorporate everything was modified heavily based on your comments in that thread. It was because of that kept insisting that we should make sure that it's very easy to find factual and separate factual from non-factual.

One of the reasons I dropped out was, ridiculously, so many of the links were to the new skin which I don't use. It's hard to read messages with &^&^^^%^$%$£$£"" evey other word... and I didn't feel as if anyone was listening anyway, so interesting that you say things were taken into account.

Like everyone else, I have thoughts on the way h2g2 should be run, but I don't want to put a huge amount of effort into something that may never happen. I also find myself arguing the toss about ridiculous small things instead of the big things that I really don't even dare dream about.

It broke my heart the other day when my son said he'd look something up on Wikipedia. He's grown up seeing me on h2g2. That should have been h2g2.

That last bit didn't make much sense. I'd deleted something about Aunty's neglect of many years and how I don't think h2g2 will ever recover from it, and stay recognisable. then there was the sad bit about h2g2 should have been The One.

Do you want me to remove your High Heels entry from the book? It's showcasing all sorts of things, not just the edited guide. Let me know what you want me to do; I'd be sorry to lose it, but I was sorry to say "too late - the slot's been taken" when people I'd asked a while back turned up recently after being offsite for a while.

The UGT is not about demoting or drowning factual pieces, it's about clearly differentiating them from opinion, personal experience, and what magazines and newspapers call 'features' pieces, and letting the reader choose what they read.

The link incidentally is http://www.tinyurl.com/noohootoo

My feeling is that you are rejecting the idea based on how it was presented in the days of the underguide in 2003, and based on personal dislike of Pinniped (who's strong mdicine at the best of times). But if you think about how newspapers and the blogosphere lable content and let people pick and choose between it, then you can see there is no dilution of the Edited Guide. Extension, maybe. Dilution, no.

Er, two things. I'm happy for the showcase because nothing's set in stone at the moment and I knew full well what was happening when I 'submitted', which is the difference.

And what personal dislike of Pinniped? I've disagreed with ideas for PR but not sure where you're getting that from? Don't think I've ever spoken outside of PR?

Maybe I am being closed minded about this, but I can't help the way I feel, nor dismiss the idea that I'll change my mind at some point.

That link doesn't work for me, just brings up 43 empty pages.

Firstly, I'm sorry if it seemed like I was putting words onto your keyboard. I've not been into PR for years and years, but Pinniped's reputation precedes him. So my mistake completely. No rumours starting here. Nothing to see. Move along please ladies and gents.

The tinyurl goes through to a pdf file on Google Docs. I've no idea why it's not working. I'll check when I'm not at a work PC>

And last but most important for me! I am really glad we are keeping your entry.

Ben