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

Err, yes. Although I suppose 'simian' or 'ape-man' would be more appropiate.

Another thing I'm sure Russian has which Britian lacks is a support framework to spot the talented apes, and to encourage them to write (these are the scouts, etc). But you can only spot people, if there's lots of people there in the first place.

I quite liked the idea that 'Prof. Burnham' had of getting pupils to write for this site. We don't just need more publicity (we are gaining more references from the rest of BBCi), we need the _right_ publicity.

spelugx

Of course I wasn't implying newbies were monkeys I'm an ACE! I'm not allowed to say that in so many ways!

I've revised my theory. If we have a large number of newbies, and we can attract them to the EG, then eventually, some of those newbies will grow to like the EG and PR

THis is a different theory from Tango's, though his works as well.

Ugg!! These metaphors are giving me headaches!

Did anyone notice that we've drifted back to topic?

Yes, i had, but I was keeping quiet in case i "jinxed" it.

Tango

PS I hate metaphors too, but i do apprieciate a well thought out one.

Tango

So, wait... the Russian apes are playing in olympics?

(Replying to post 311)

Tango, the reason that I think it would be a terrible idea for additional awards to be made for contributions to the EG is around the issue of accreditation.

Taking myself for example. In most of the entries I've had through peer review the comments recieved have been limited to asking for clarification of points, or suggestions about my spelling etc. But in one case a point spurred me on to start looking in a whole new direction and change the entry quite fundamentally. Now should I have credited that researcher in my entry? I don't know.

Or to take another example, in one of the collaborative entries arising from a front page talking point. My input was edited to pricisely three words - "Supermarkets aren't romantic." - Now high up the credits pecking order do you think I should be with that contribution?

-This is relevant, just hold on a second- I've always wanted an award for outstanding EG entries, but backed away from doing anything because I knew that people like GreyDesk, sensible people , would say something like this.

What if the original author got it only, unless it was a joint venture from the start?

If you can stand the crushing boredom, look at A578388 and tell me how you'd score the various contributions I've made to Edited entries which were less than 90% mine...

Still think scoring is a bad idea.

H.

I'm against scoring too. It's overstructuring the idea, and newbies wouldn't like it as much I think

I'm also against scoring. Things shouldn't be done for points any more than a particular job should be chosen for the money.

I don't see what's wrong with elitism though (depending on what you all mean by that). There's too much anti-elitism and anti-intellectualism in the world (especially the UK) already - leading to a drastic lowering of standards so that more people can pretend to be elite while not actually being happy in the role or being better rewarded/paid. This is because the intellectual elite weren't actually highly valued or paid in the first place! The whole thing is based on a false premise.

People should be valued for who they are and what they can do but that _does_ include the intellectuals and not just the sports/pop-stars. They should be doing the job they want to do and are capable of doing.

Similarly, the EG contributors should be doing it because they want to and not for some artificial reward. The articles should also be as good as they possibly can be. That's the point where I think the current system is failing badly - and almost by design.

You have a problem with money, SEF?

We're not worried as to why they're writing, just that they write. That's our main concern. I have a feeling someone is going to spring the 'If they do it for a reward, how good can they be?' but I'll answer that now, good enough to be edited... which brings up a number of rather interesting new questions...

To address HVL's current whinge:

No, I certainly don't think a points-scoring system is good incentive for writing EG entries.

However, the people who you so nobly credited for writing 10% of your entries (usually, I don't bother ), had done the important thing by being interested in the EG and being in PR in the first place. The large problem is: how do we encourage more people to follow their example. I know a huge number of Researchers who don't even know what the PR page looks like, despite the fact that there's a ruddy great banner at the top of every page.

B

No, I don't have a problem with money.

However, I do see it as a very bad sign when someone makes it their most important aim. There are quite a few jobs which are ludicrously overpaid and attract people with entirely the wrong attitude as a result. Of course there are more than enough other bad signs and job prestige incentives.

The "good enough to be edited" attitude does assume the people doing the editing understand what they are doing/selecting. Which takes us back to the earlier issue in this thread that, quite clearly, often they don't.

That banner could well be part of the problem - as has been pointed out by several people already. It looks so much like the typical Yahoo/Angelfire/[internet site of your choice] advert that people immediately tune it out and ignore it.

Apart from the fact that there's not a 'ruddy great banner' at the top of brunel, which means that people don't see it until they sign up and get dumped into alabaster. So it's not actually encouraging people to join just for the peer review.

spelugx

>>No, I don't have a problem with money.

However, I do see it as a very bad sign when someone makes it their most important aim. There are quite a few jobs which are ludicrously overpaid and attract people with entirely the wrong attitude as a result. Of course there are more than enough other bad signs and job prestige incentives.

Politicians?

1stly, there isn't a banner in Brunel. But i get your point.

We are at risk of going so off topic as to end up with a capitalism vs communism debate, which i don't think would be much help.

As I have already said, a point system would work better when we have the more advanced credit system. (It has been in the ideas list for some time).

I don't want an overstructured system at all. I think a simple system, such as:

No contributions at all - No Badge
Contributions of less than 30% - Some kind of small badge. (probably not small by size...)
1 edited article (more than 30%) - Researchers Badge
5 edited articles (more than 30%) - Senior Researchers Badge
20 edited articles - Some big thing

The 1, 5 and 20 articles could be modified to include smaller contribution if someone can come up with a simple way to do it.

Tango

You have to except that the banner looks like an ad. That's what it used to be. Without redesigning the skins, it will stay like that.

Tango

Tango's diverting us from one off topic to another...

If the researcher didn't write most of the entry, why does he or she get a badge? I say a researcher badge only if they wrote it. Collaborations are a novelty