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

Wow, how did I miss this thread?
Very interesting and stimulating.
Next time, tell me about these things.

I think the old Trout's censored cheese makes the definitive case in answer to the original question. Yes, the EG is too conservative. I mean, that is what it smell's like. The problem is the eleven year olds. Give them just two more years and they will know that's what it smells like. And wouldn't they love to read about it here in a confirming and affirming atmosphere. Here, where such perspectives on truth and reality were the hallmark of the Founder and Mentor (DNA).

<./>AGGGAG</.> is just one of dozens of attempts to solve the problem, but we have been reasonably successful, in a very small way, featuring 154 entries by 119 different researchers in our first 42 issues. As Subcom.Deidzoeb said, we still face the rules of Moderation. This has been frustrating, and often we allowed ourselves to slip into the rabble and rubble and rumble rabidly.

But we have evolved and are now reformed as the Committee for Alien Content (CAC). Our intent now is to focus less on admonishing the EG and to try to make fewer faces at the PR system. We have rededicated ourselves to doing what has been recommended here by several people, simply searching for 'quality' in the unedited guide. And we could use your help.

Our experience, as witnessed in "The 42 Issues of AggGag" [See: <./>AGGGAG-Archives</.> ], has taught us that selection and editing is a tough job and requires many hands. We have come to appreciate the difficulties both scouts and sub-eds have and the hard work they do. We sympathise also with the Editorial Team and acknowledge their wisdom and thank them for letting this conversation reach 60 posts without making any 'official' comment.

Our original anger at the 'loss of faith' in the promise of the h2g2 premise has matured into a realisation that people are people, no two people write the same way, nobody is as funny as DNA, deadlines are deadlines and somebody has to make the hard decisions. So, god bless the EG.

But that doesn't mean that those who expressed an interest in organising more of the unedited guide should hesitate to join our Committee for Alien Content. Remember, a double negative really can white a wong.

~jwf~ for CAC
(that's The Committee for Alien Content)
"We put the CAC in AggGagCAC"

PS: Wandrin' fans can rest assured that we are looking forward to again featuring her eloquence in an upcoming edition of CAC. Look for it in

Just Bob,

Even if your entry gets accepted to the Edited Guide and revised in a way you don't like, the original entry you wrote will still exist. If you don't like how it was edited, you can say so in a conversation thread at the bottom of the page, and you can tell them where to find your better version.

Hi Ben, hi all,

I read this thread with interest after coming to it rather late.

Last week a talented, imaginative and highly productive researcher took his ball home and another spent the whole week up in arms in defence of an entry on a bizarre and probably very rare card game with a rude name. Bizarre subject; well written, factual and arguably informative entry. Instant polemic - just add PR.

But i *don't* think the guidelines prevent researchers from writing well. And stylised writing *doesn't* all just get edited into a flat style.

I was sorry, for instance, to see Dr Monty's (hi DrM,) rather negative contribution to this thread, when (a little spilled semen aside) you have produced a whole series of entries in a gloriously personal style, including, imo, lots of wit and an unconventional approach to factual informative material.

I like what one researcher said about the lack of so-called 'good' edited entries being the responsibility of the writing pool, not the forum.

Equally, i agree with the view that EG status is not the only merit here.

Perhaps the 'workshop' aspect of AWW should be changed... It isn't really a place to work on stuff - it's more like a showcase for anything that is not intended to go into the EG.

If the EG used to something much freer then things have changed. But the opportunities for unfettered creative-writing are no less present on h2g2.

The question seems to be, where's the recognition sposed to come from.

Don't know exactly what i'm saying here, and besides, i'm a relative toddler, arrived well after Rupert and never saw the 'good old days'. But i *do* see lots of great stuff going through PR, and that's where i spend most of my time here.

too pedestrian? Not for my money.

I'm gonna link to this conv in this week's CAC, see whether anybody from either side crosses the line...

GO YOU BIG RED FIRE ENGINE!!!!!!!!!!
spiff

I know this must be explained in bite-size, idiot-proof steps somewhere, but I can't be bothered looking for it. How do I know if someone's making a comment about my submitted piece? Am I automatically subscribed to threads on it? Do I have to search it out, and how do I find it?

You have to click on the "conversations" link on the bottom of the entry, the original version and the edited version.

Hmm, interesting. The reverse angle is of course that the Edited Guide as it exists is to...'pedestrian', I think is the phrase being bandied about. Don't much care for that term either as i think it belittles those of that don't care (or dare) to try and be funny or different in entries, but stick to 'just the facts' as Joe Friday used to say. That can be a worthwhile approach as well.

The strength of the Guide as I (probably myopically) see it, is that it represents the best efforts of the community, tempered by the restraining hand of a pretty sympathetic bunch of editors. There are some woe-ful bits of gibberish that have made it into the EG (no, I won't, don't ask), and some very good writing that has been passed over, for one reason or another.

It's all still here, somewhere. The search engine will pick 'em all up.

IDIC is a great concept, but there has to be a limit. That limit will always appear arbitrary to somebody who has fallen 'the wrong side' of it. I actually think it's probably about where it should be.