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

Oh Spook, did you have to start that again.

I suppose I'd better find out what you mean by "a convo on Front Page convos" since I didn't think people attached conversations to the front page.

I'm unsubscribing from this thread, it's simply turning into insult hurling.

i didn't start anything SEF!

i was replying to hvl's previous comment about getting Tango to apologise, and gave him obvious reasons why Tango would not, then went on to points about editorial feedback convos, where conversation is moving to.

anyway, my front page conversation idea type thing can be found at F47997?thread=276968.

spook

I've done something about your front page conversation idea already.

This post has been removed.

spook

You did start something, a while back, in PR.

In a very public place and in a very public way you behaved in a boorish manner while supposedly carrying out your duties as a scout. You subsequently apologised to the editors for your behaviour, however the damage was done.

Now, in this thread you have indicated that boorish behaviour from scouts is unacceptable.

The researcher that was offended at the time (HVL) has AFAIK not received an apology from you and was clearly more than a little disgruntled to find that you were criticising the kind of behaviour that you yourself have engaged in.

Now maybe HVL has been a tad unreasonable, but then again maybe not. You haven't apologised to him, so why should he assume that you have matured in anyway and that your views have indeed changed. Perhaps you could consider making an apology to HVL now. It would after all be a sign that you have matured.

You could then, as I have already suggested, put your energy to good use and work within the Scout volunteer scheme to develop working practices which will ultimately prevent a similar occurrence, improve the atmosphere in PR and ultimately earn you greater respect from other researchers.

Tango

I suggest that before you level accusations at a researcher with a near photographic memory, that you fully research your facts.

And while your defence of one of your peers is laudable it is completely unneccesary. You have been here long enough to know better.

If I were you I would apologise for involving yourself in this matter, as I am about to.

HVL, spook, Tango

I am sorry if I have caused offence by involving myself in this disagreement.

This is a matter that concerns no other researcher but spook and HVL. I am sure that you can openly resolve this matter within no more than two or three posts, which will I'm sure lead to further improvement in the debate and the range of suggestions being made regarding PR and Quality Control.

Madent

Madent - from your post your obviously do not understand the situation.

1. the incident happened over 6 months ago. i made a mistake. the editors said i did not. i admitted my mistake and HAVE apologised to hoovooloo. i did not apologise to the editors as you say as they editors were the ones that wrong along with me. however, even after that hoovooloo has stopped writing for the EG.

2. since then i have never repeated the same mistake again, and have been a lot more careful in peer review. i did not engaged in 'boorish behaviour', i simply made 1 misake in one post.

3. i have matured by learning from my mistakes, never making the same one again and becoming a better sout. hvl is still obsessed about 1 post.

4. if i am critiscising something that i once did and have learnt it was wrong and openly admit i was wrong then i am doing the right thing as an incdent like that should not occur again. however, it probably won't since hvl is the one who gave up on the edited guide. no-one made him quit. i am not responsible for his actions.

i will not be apologising to hvl again. i did it once, and his actions towards me and Tango have been rude, arrogant and insulting in every way. i'm surprised Madent that you are going on at me and Tango. we have moved on from that incident, yet in evrey thread hvl keeps bringing up the issue. he keeps bringing it up in this thread, he recently brought it into another thread on badges that was recently started, and he is the one continuing this dispute.

perhaps before you start critiscising me you would learn the facts first. i settled my issue from the pr incident a long time ago. hvl is the one that brought his problem with me to this thread, caused the problems in this thread and others, and keeps continuing the dispute.

you critiscised the two inicent parties in this dispute madent, and seem to have made an exception of the guilty party.

spook

"i will not be apologising to hvl again. i did it once,"

spook's "apology", as he refers to it, can be found here.

F101670?thread=217549&skip=203

Specifically: "i have already said that if i was in teh wrong i am sorry. i personally do not think i was in the wrong, but if i was, i have apologised."

Sincere, eh?

H.

As I understand it, spook, this disagreement is NOT about whether or not HVL's entry was fit for the EG, nor is it about whether or not a scout can request an entry to be removed from PR.

This disagreement arose simply over your behaviour (which by any common definition of the word was "boorish") and I have read your "apology".

"Apology - An acknowledgment expressing regret or asking pardon for a fault or offense."

As a parallel (which should in no way be considered a definitive example) Tony Martin was recently refused parole for saying pretty much the same thing as you (which irrespective of the merits of the case is not a good way to get out of jail).


As an aside, can I suggest that rather than shoot from the hip, you read your posts before submitting them.

it is about my behaviour. my behaviour in one post. which i have apologised for and admitted i was in fault.

perhaps, instead of post about things of which you do not understand, you don't!

spook

Could be classed as controversial, i know but...

how about staying on topic which i believe was "Peer Review and Quality Control"

Mort

Amazing how long this subject line has survived...

That's tempting fate, Jodan. However, I think the reason is that as flame wars go this one is relatively civilised. No-one has felt the need to change the subject title as part of any abuse. It is a bit of a shame that the hiding of some of the posts makes it hard for anyone else to check back on the truth of the matter but it has certainly not been one-sided!

In a vague attempt to get back on topic, I do think some editorial policy or volunteer scheme needs to be applied consistently to PR in cases of dispute. This is not just about abusive disputes between author and scouts but the checking that all content-related disputes are resolved with reference to some more expert researchers, or external sources of information. At the moment PR threads can get ignored and articles go through without being corrected for factual accuracy. This is seldom done later either, whereas typos are usually dealt with soon after reaching the EG.

Didn't someone - way back in the backlog - suggest that people who submit to PR should be asked to spend a few minutes browsing through other peoples entries and providing feedback.

As I've never submitted anything to PR (although I am subscribed and do comment when a subject appears that I feel I can contribute to) I don't know if this is the case but surely it would be fairly straight forward to put this request in along with a link to the PR page at the end of the submission process.

And I think everyone is agreed that increasing the number of people in PR is the best way to improve feedback and therefore quality within the EG.

Hoovooloo: "Sincere, eh?"

I'm keeping quiet on this one now. If you continue to discuss it, I will not get involved. This is a thread that you started to cover a serious issue. Do you want to be one of the ones to wreck it?

Whoami?

Sorry, couldn't resist. The new subject line is in no way aimed at anyone other than JBS Haldane and old Action Men.

"this one is relatively civilised"

That could be taken to be something of a compliment - we may be arrogant/ignorant/unapologetic liars, but we ARE civilised.

"At the moment PR threads can get ignored and articles go through without being corrected for factual accuracy"

And so we return to the subject of post 1!

H.

I regularly mooch about PR...

(although havent subscribed to it - did once and couldnt keep up with other posts, although i have now subbed to AWW and WW which are less busy)

... but comment very little, mainly because of the wide range of topics that i cannot offer any feedback on. Were i to something it may indicate that it was correct as opposed to i liked it but could be factually incorrect at some point.

On topics i can offer something, someone has often pointed out what i might have said already.

Although i take the point that if you dont say anything then no-one knows if it has been read let alone have any opinions on it.

Mort

Although I only joined hootoo relatively recently I do tend to try and comment on articles in PR, WW and AWW, and have posted a couple of entries to PR and AWW.

If I spot something in an article (spelling, poor readability etc) even if I don't know the subject matter that indepth, I will try a quick search on Google to get a bit more info, or if the researcher has posted links, will follow those links.

If the links I find haven't been suggested, I will put them forward as possible inclusions, and tend to limit the rest of the post to linguistic and grammatical suggestions.

I feel that participating in the Writing feedback on offer in hootoo is an educational experience for myself as much as a way of helping to polish up other articles.

(Well that's my anyway)

In your situation, Kiltedjedi, I'd not have opened my mouth for fear of being attacked!

It's nice to know that we're not all lazy! I hope you find PR interesting - I know I do.

Whoami?

I wasn't lazy. I did comment on grammatical and factual errors. I did get attacked for it (along with the another person who could also see the mistakes). Worse yet, I was the one told off and (as far as I know) the person who was actually in the wrong was not. I don't think the article was ever corrected. Also I think this is one of the excuses still being used against me to cover up some other unfairness and dishonesty. As I said before, I now have to regard Peer Review as relatively pointless and also dangerously negative.