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

You said in your original post, "I've not been persisting in any way" emphasis on 'in any way'.

Anyway...

Does any one know around what digibox users represent the h2g2 population?

Hmm, what if someone rescues and entry from the flea market. Do they get accredited (In whatever way) for that, when usually they didn' write most of it

Just as I said much earlier. Badges, counts, awards and sweeties for writing for the EG over and above your name in the entry's data entry box, is a bad idea PRECISELY because of the issue of accreditation.

If anyone wants to see the entries you've written, there is a handy list on everyone's user page. If they've written more than 10, then there is a link to see further pages. So there is no need for badges etc.

And, if you rescue an Entry from the Flea Market, I generally find that you have to write most of it, in any case.

B

it depends Master. some entries in Flea Market only need a few modifications or additions, while for others you may as well just start from scratch.

on the issue of Flea Market - does anyone else think it needs clearing out? there are so many entries in there, and most of them wouldn't be suitable for the EG in a thousand years. wouldn't it be better to dispose of FM, nd move conversations back to the entry instead? if someone wants to write an entry they can use a h2g2 search to find any other entry on the subject, and they would pick up Flea Market entries there.

who would really spend hours scanning FM for an entry when they can just use a h2g2 search?

spook

"who would really spend hours scanning FM for an entry when they can just use a h2g2 search?"

Quite a lot of people, I think you'll find Spook. The advantage of the FM is you *know* those entries are abandoned, plus as you say, so many entries that end up there merely need polishing up, and are suitable for the EG in most ways. An entry in teh FM on a town is likely yo be pretty useful, with at least the bare bones there, whereas an enrty found via the search engine could well be little more than three lines of 'why such and such a is a boring place'.

perhaps, although i would find that searching for entries on certain subjects you can find many, each with information, and you an put them together to create a good entry.

one problem there definitely is with FM is that not everyone looks at it, so there could be, as you say, an enry about a subject in FM that just needs polishing, then someone else comes along, wrtes an entry on that subject that contains the same information, then that entry could be picked etc, and the entry in FM isn't used at all.

FM really does need a clean of of entries that already have better versions in the EG, and things like that, just to cut it down a little, and make it a bit easier to look through. it will probably become a bit more useful then, especially to researchers who don't have that much time. perhaps all review forums should be categorised.

spook

I'd certainly agree a clean is required- I should be able to help with that once I've updated the Hall of Scavengers

exactly, kerravon

who would spend hours trawling thru the flea market? *i* would, and did! which resulted in the creation of my project page (A475229) and the fact that i now try to get everyone i know involved in the flea market or collaborative workshop. i don't think flea market needs to be cleared out and abandonned, i think it needs press, people need to know it's there. how many people would write for the guide if they could pick up an entry that's been mostly written already and only needed a few finishing touches?

the items on my project page are not (on the whole) things i would have thought to look for in a site-search, but are things that i looked at and thought 'with the information that's there i could finish this up and add it to the guide'. like titania said (a few pages ago) *some* entry on a subject is better than none.

hvl, i will not take back what i said, but I will point out that you misinterpreted what i said.

I did not say you had been lying, i said you hadn't been honest. And that is true. Your posts were emotional and opinion based, therefore they were not honest, although they were not lies either. Spook on the other hand had described you in a factual and honest way, eg. "arrogant". If you would like to deny that you are arrogant then do so on my personal space so we can let these nice people get on with their discussion.

--------------------------------------

*and meanwhile, back on topic*

I've just taken an entry out of the FM, and after a few hours I subbmitted it to PR. There are a few minor things i need to change now, but nothing major. I did nothing more than a sub-ed with too much time on their hands would do. I don't think i deserve as much credit as the original author (who, BTW, is a Researcher XXX), they must have done research and thought about the subject a lot, i spent less than an hour editing it, i have a feeling they were using a translator program. Once the more specific crediting system is in place, i would be able to put myself as a minor contributor, and the original author as the writer/researcher, they would get the badge, not me.

Tango

I've thought a bit about the badge idea. I don't see a problem with it as long as we KISS.

If you write a solo entry you get a badge (similar design to the Volunteer badges) which defines you as an h2g2 Researcher who has actually done some research.

If you're credited on someone else's entry (as Dr trout has credited many Researchers who have made suggestions in the PR threads for many of his entries), or if you get a mention in a collaborative entry of any kind, you get the same badge, but with something different about it - stripes across it, some kind of bar across the top, whatever.

If you have the collaborative badge and you then get a solo entry on the front page, you don't get an extra badge, the collaborative badge is simply changed to become the solo badge.

No need for quotas, no need for a system of points, just two styles of one badge.

And if you take one from the FM, then I guess the original author should get a collaborative badge, even if they've Elvised - who knows, they may come back one day

I can think of one reason why the Eds may not go for it - it may alienate any Researchers who for whatever reason are unable to write an entry.

That sounds like it would work. You don't think a badge for writing lots of entries is a good idea?

The FM idea is oversimple. Sometimes, as has been said, the original author does most work, and sometimes, the new author does most work. Maybe a special badge for small groups writing, somewhere from about 3 to 5, maybe.

It sounds cruel, and it is, but really, if you can't write for the guide, then you shouldn't be a researcher for it. Obviously there are things people can do that are still helpful but aren't actually writing, so that idea is very simplistic, but i hope people understand what i mean. Everyone that is capable of signing up should be capable of getting the contribution badge, anyway.

Tango

That sounds like it would work. You don't think a badge for writing lots of entries is a good idea?

The FM idea is oversimple. Sometimes, as has been said, the original author does most work, and sometimes, the new author does most work. Maybe a special badge for small groups writing, somewhere from about 3 to 5, maybe.

It sounds cruel, and it is, but really, if you can't write for the guide, then you shouldn't be a researcher for it. Obviously there are things people can do that are still helpful but aren't actually writing, so that idea is very simplistic, but i hope people understand what i mean. Everyone that is capable of signing up should be capable of getting the contribution badge, anyway.

Tango

I'm not entirely convinced by that last statement. For example some researchers frequent peer review and contribute there, and yet do not write entries of their own. Surely they shouldn't be classed as somehow being inferior to those who write Guide entries. As has been remarked, the key to having high quality Guide entries with as few inaccuracies as possible is to get as many researchers involved in Peer review as possibel. Also the idea of awarding badges to those researchers who contribute x many articles and so on I think would introduce a spirit of competition into the whole process that I'm not sure really reflects the kind of spirit the community is known for.

When I first joined, I had no intention of writing any entries, edited or not - I'm a so called 'foreigner' (that is, English is a foreign language to me) - and I wasn't very used to expressing myself in English in writing - and thought I had no writing skills in my own language either, for that sake... ...the wanting-to-write thing came gradually - I joined for the conversations, for the wonderful people I found that I thought I had something in common with... 'if you can't write for the guide, then you shouldn't be a researcher for it' - oh, I see - and what would the Guide be without the conversations and the clubs and the friendship - just another encyclopaedia, and we have enough of those already Face it - the Guide isn't *just* about entries - if you think that, you are sadly missing a lot of the community bits - and this is, after all, a community and *not* an encyclopaedia And as for quality vs quantity I'd like to quote the original Guide: The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a very unevenly edited book and contains many passages that simply seemed to its editors like a good idea at the time. Besides, my impression is that the BBC were interested in h2g2 *because* of the community thingy, rather than the edited entries it contained

i think the bbc were more interested in the dna team and it's technology.

quite an appropriate quote from the book as well

but i do feel you are wrong in one respect: h2g2 is a community *and* an encyclopedia. i think the fact that they co-exist is what makes this place fantastic

Oh yes - sorry - the word 'just' should have been there twice in that sentence

'Face it - the Guide isn't *just* about entries - if you think that, you are sadly missing a lot of the community bits - and this is, after all, a community and *not* JUST an encyclopaedia'

Thanks broelan!

No, I wouldn't bother with counting the number of Edited Entries and either getting a different badge for every five, or having the count marked on your badge somehow.

Once you've either collaborated in an Edited Entry, or written one yourself and had it edited, you get your badge. End of story

You should read things more carefully, i said very clearly that that idea was oversimplified and had many flaws, i was just trying to make a point, by making the extreme point.

I don't understand why you don't agree with me that everyone is capable of some sort of contribution. It has already been said that there are authors that credit people who give ideas in PR, anyone is able to do that, so could therefore get the badge.

Tango