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

Community service message;
The spelling is "Diarrhea"
I had to look it up

In the UK spelling, there's an extra 'o' before the 'ea'.

The question was asked on whether EG content has improved or declined over time. It is my opinion that what is being produced now is much better than what was being written originally, but is not up to the standards that were being maintained some 1.5 - 2 years ago. There was a brief golden age at the time the University and Peer Review were introduced. Standards have gradually slipped since then, as more experienced researchers have either sworn off the EG completely, or started writing for the various alternatives to the EG instead (underguide, AGG, Post, etc.).

who let Deja Vu in here?

I have to say I felt things had really reached a low, when somebody started on a thread dedicated to putting the word "knob" into lovesongs. And I say this as a person who probably contributes to a lot of the immature stuff in here

diarrhea spelled differently?
Hmmm , well thanks Potholer!

Blathers,

How do you propose to up the quality of the Edited Guide?

Breed the Sub-eds carefully, with attention to style detection abilities?

I didn't cover that already? Well, too much backlog to go through, so here goes...

1) Hold entries to a higher standard, depending on their subject matter. As a hypothetical example, an article proposing to cover the Tudor line of monarchs in England should not be accepted if it lacks coverage of Bloody Mary. If my article on the Titanic had left out the discovery, it should have either been retitled, or rejected.

2) Improve the quality of editing. If this requires a new editorial staff, so be it. Eds should be performing a final check on the work after the Subs finish it. Also, I am a strong believer in allowing the writer to have a look at the edited version *before* it gets published. That's the strongest proof against introducting errors of fact.

3) Amend the PR homepage to ask that writers not be overly emotional in their reactions to criticism, as some people do not take criticism well. The page already teaches critics to be sensitive to the writers, but does not address the other half of the relationship.

4) Actively promote the Writing Workshop. I haven't looked in there in quite some time, but last I knew, it was a dumping ground where incomplete articles were ignored. Some people might prefer adding the missing pieces rather than constructing an entire article. Collaborative writing is often greater than the sum of the talents involved.

5) Do a better job of promoting University projects.

6) Create some sort of special recognition for outstanding works... perhaps an "Article of the Month" award to be selected by a panel and printed in the Post. Or a "Researcher of the Month," for outstanding contributions over a 30-day period. Meritorious awards have the dual advantage of rewarding hard work and inspiring others to reach that level.

I think these measures would serve to keep the current crop of experienced researchers from disillusionment, which would keep them around long enough to nurture the next batch of newbies.

good points, well put.

sorry if i made you repeat yourself - i forget things easily.

As Flake99 said, good points and well put, but lacking one very important point - the Scouts can only work with what they're given. We have to make three recommendations every four weeks, and I've never yet gotten to the point where I'm panicking wondering where the hell I'm going to get all my picks from, but I've often had to trawl through a lot of tosh to get my three in, and a good few entries which were written by a Researcher who has more enthusiasm for writing an entry than knowledge of the subject they've chosen.

I don't want to lay all the blame at the feet of Researchers for not writing good entries. The more active Researchers that are on h2g2, the more good (and not so good) entries there will be. Some of the entry writers are excellent (even professional) writers, most are not. That's why we have Sub-editors. I reckon the Subs are doing a pretty good job, and if they weren't then I'm sure the Eds would do something about it. I must add here that I had to point out a couple of editing errors in my last front page entry, and it was edited by... the h2g2 Editors

I'd cerainly agree that the writer should have the chance to see the final draft before it becomes an approved entry, and point out where things are wrong.

I was a bit put off the whole approval process when my first (and so far only) solo article had erroneous changes made just before it was approved that I was not given a chance to flag up at the time.
Given I had been discussing other things with the sub-ed during editing, I was surprised they didn't get back to me with the final version, (I'd kind of assumed a writer's signing-off would be a logical part of the whole editing process).

In fact, I think I'll go off now and make a list of the problems and see if someone can make the changes for me.

I'm afriad I have to disagree in the last month we have had many excellent enteries.

They include:


maths A964956 on Diophantine Equations


Medicine -the fascinated and excellently written A974333 on Caesarean Sections..

particle physics - The Higgs Boson
A851429


interesting entries that make you think..

A918461 on the scientific method

and A944408 on Land Rights Battles of the Western Shoshone Indians

yes there have been TV entries but they have been very long and well written ones on progammes thar are part of our cultural.. eg... A925904 On Yes Minsiter.. Which I have to say is an excellent entry..

But Peer Review, is just that.. if you want to improve things then drop in and comment there, suggest improvements.

(esp to my entry on Anaemia! F48874?thread=265080 )

When I'm scouting and considering picking an entry that Iknow very little about, I'm not going to know if something has been left out..

However if someone has posted to the Peer Review thread that something has been left out then I will not pick it until it was added.

Some of you might say that we should have less scientific entries because they personally find them dull, but surely if we are to be a guide to "life, the University, and everything" then we need enteries on everything. We should encourage people who are scientfic to write enteries that are understandable to everyone, and don't include jargon. Then they are unlikely to be dull!

1) Actually, I've noticed an increasing tendency for messages from our glorious leaders to pop up at the end of a peer review threrad saying something like: this entry has actually been picked, but we feel that the author must address some of the points made in the thread for the article to be inclusive enough. And they hold off on the rest of the process till the author does.

Also, regarding 3), I've also noticed an increasing tendency for authors to be more receptive to taking note of/including stuff that people have raised in the threads. I think peer review took a long time for people to get used to, and there was a lot of resistance to the process which is now fading. And I have noticed that it is often the newer people on h2g2 who are the best at taking the process in the spirit in which it is meant, which is either because they see old hands taking it with such grace, or they come and think that this is just how it works, rather than remembering the good old days. Doesn't mean some people still don't put in something that really isn't suited to peer review, but that generally the whole thing has become less combatitive and more cooporative.

What else? Oh yes. Acctually I agree that it would be nice for the author to get to keep an eye on what's going on with their article. Again, it seems that a lot of sub editirs actually are doing it as a consultative process (well, the two that edited my two - count them - articles, anyway). Which I have to say I did find very rewarding, and interesting. Is this a policy now then?

I'm not sure about the usefulness of number 6 though. We already have the editors pick thing. We also have the 'Have you missed...' section, and the community can 'vote' for their favourites there. Plus it's adding another another system, which might even work for a month or so: people rush around picking stuff, and get inspired to write better. But in the end you'd find that it becomes a chore for the people doing it, and and you'd disagree with the ones that were picked and get cross cos you weren't, and then everybody would start saying "Oh, but the choice isn't what it used to be, and they only picked that because there wasn't anything better..." and so on which would be neither inspiring nor anything else.

Surely we're missing an obvious point here: That the relative quality of entries is entirely subjective.

Also, if you're going to promote Uni Projects more, the interim Project authors should really get a move on and finish their own.

B

oops! guilty as charged.

pops off to look at his university project.

Is it written indelibly that there has to be an Editor's selection & four new entries every day? Is this putting pressure on to get entries through that some may consider insufficiently high quality? What criteria do the Editors & Scouts have?

I certainly agree that the author should get to see the edited piece before publication.