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

In general ombudsmen tend not to have any powers - or at least not the right ones. I have had an ombudsman rule in my favour but admit that they couldn't do anything to correct the original wrong decision - possibly largely because it was a government department and those tend to regard themselves as above the law. An order for payment of some pitiful compensation for the bad behaviour of the government officials was met but that does nothing to match the ongoing financial impact of the original incorrect decision. Similarly an ombudsman decision on h2g2 would probably do nothing to correct the actual problem.

"if you got the ombudsman to agree with you on something, and the italics even still ignored the ombudsman, that's all you would have - consolation."

Whoopy doo. I got several other people here to agree with me over the Tango incident. One of them even took it upon himself to go to Tango's personal space and point out that he was wrong, and independently tell him he really should apologise.

I took no consolation from this whatever, however, and I wouldn't take any from the backing of an ombudsman either. I can see, in a way I like to think is objective, what is *right*. In that situation, I was *right*. It didn't matter to me if I was the only person who thought so. The majority of people are stupid, so their opinion isn't something I value that highly. Harsh, but true.

At the end of the day, the Italics either do the right thing, or the wrong thing (if a situation is clear cut, as the apology issue was). If they do the right thing, great. If they do the wrong thing, there's nothing you can do about it. That's how this place works. Don't like it? Go play somewhere else.

"You could always try to organize a strike...you guys do a ton of work for the guide."

I do no work for the guide, largely as a result of a previous disagreement. I am one among many, and I don't believe I was missed. There will never be an organised strike on h2g2, because there is no unity here. We are a huge group of disparate individuals who don't care about anyone else, aside from a few of our closest acquaintances. NOTHING, nothing at all, could possibly ever galvanise even a noticeable minority, let alone a majority, to do so much as cut back on their number of postings. People use this site as a social centre - it's not a workplace, it's a playplace. It's easy to organise a boycott of a workplace, i.e. a strike, because by definition people are only there for the money and don't really want to be there.

I invite you to imagine how easy it would be to organise a boycott of a nightclub, or a cinema, or anywhere else where people WANT to be. Oh sure, you'd likely get a few individuals who'd back you up because they recognise that principles are important. But for the vast majority of the herd, their personal gratification far outweighs your principles in importance, and you are NOTHING to them. Their entertainment comes first, even if that entertainment is being provided for them by unprincipled creatures who hold them, the mindless consumers, in contempt. Some of them even know this - and don't care.

Depressing, but true. See the sales figures for "The Sun".

"If the ombudsmen decides that the italics have done something wrong, then if they don't correct it, they lose credibility."

Yeah, right. Nice idea.

"Maybe they don't care about it in the short term,"

Do they even recognise the concept? Serious question.

"but in the long term they'll feel the pinch. The volunteers who work hard WILL dry up if consistently abused, and the guide will fail."

I disagree entirely - and here's the clincher: so do the staff. In fact, they've EXPLICITY said so. Their position is that if every single member of h2g2 were to stop writing tomorrow, the site could and would continue. I refer readers to this post: F55683?thread=135321#p1227095 , specifically the line " It's debatable whether h2g2 would recover if the entire Community left the site and we started again from scratch, but we think it would;".

While the staff attitude continues to be that the ENTIRE COMMUNITY and every single person in it is expendable - but that the staff, personally, are not - things will not change.

The only response to that is to adjust your use of h2g2 accordingly. For me it's no longer "the Guide", it's now merely a chatroom with some biased and rather inefficient moderators. I tolerate them because of the quality of the people it's possible to talk with here.

How everyone else chooses to react to being told they're expendable is up to them, of course.

H.

I agree with your last comments on the site having become a chat room, there's not nearly enough participation in the edited guide, and somewhere like the Café is now very quiet. Although all the newer researchers will just claim that it's a reluctance to move forward, and they may be right...

That comment was the opinion of *one* member of the Editorial team - who is no longer with the site.

Current events demonstrate that the bad attitude of the editorial team still persists.

such as?

Mina:

"That comment was the opinion of *one* member of the Editorial team - who is no longer with the site."

That comment was posted as being from "The h2g2 Editors", plural. That may have been a mistake. Whatever. Nobody's perfect. (Well, maybe Cameron Diaz...)

I only bring it up because that it appears (rightly or wrongly) to a very few of us to remain the basis of policy.

That's all.

If it's NOT, it's OK to say so explicitly, but hey, actions speak louder than words.

It's a beatiful day, and I'm off work, so I'm going and sitting in the sun. Hasta la vista, whatever that means...

H.

I'd forgotten that it was the beginning of the 'h2g2 Editors' persona being more active on site, I should have checked the link. I recognised the writing style when I read it as a Researcher, and that coloured my memory.

It is not the opinion of the current h2g2 Editorial team that the Community is expendable. We try to treat every Researcher the same, but because each Researcher is different it's not always possible.
We wouldn't want the Community as a whole to disappear, and we hope that the Community wouldn't want the Editorial team to disappear.

In my personal opinion, things would never be the same again, in either case.

It's such a pity that Mina gets burdened with all this. It's not that I agree with Hoovooloo (that would be to break a long-standing tradition ). I think the Italics are fine and largely do their job well. I've always trusted Mina to try and act in the best interests of the community because:

1. It's her job.
2. She was once a mortal like the rest of us.

Hoovooloo, you and Tango got out of hand and it was frustrating other users. The Italics probably asked you to shut up to prevent people from throwing their computers from their desks.

Whoami?

"It's such a pity that Mina gets burdened with all this... It's her job."

Well, you said it. It's a shame that policemen have to deal with lawbreakers, bankers have to deal with deadbeats, teachers have to deal with stupid lazy, violent children and soldiers have to kill people. But that's their job.

Not to be uncharitable, but Mina knew better than most, I think, what that job was about. She does it pretty well, I think. Better than I could, certainly.

"Hoovooloo, you and Tango got out of hand and it was frustrating other users."

Really? And did any of them take it up with Tango? (Hint: yes - one did. And got short shrift, I might add...)

"The Italics probably asked you to shut up to prevent people from throwing their computers from their desks."

I refuse to speculate on the real reasons. The given reason was that asking for an apology, repeatedly, was considered to constitute harassment. No mention was made of any effect on other users. I don't think retreading that case is on topic for this thread in any case, so I'll politely ask that we drop it, and I shall not refer to it again.

H.

I believe that the last post on topic (Peer Review and Quality Control) was around post 588.

Mort

^^^^ Here's a new subject then.

Yep, that just about covers it!

Are there any statistics?

(1) Number of researchers actively posting (say per week)
(2) Number of new threads being activated (per week)
(3) Number of entries being submitted to Peer Review (per week).

Give me those for the last 52 weeks, please.

Thanks.

DMT

The italics do get stats including things like the turnover rate of people joining and leaving which means they can guage how long people stay for. Unfortunately BBC policy is not to release stats like that, and so we'll not find out how this has changed with time

I've actually done some bad statistics to try and estimate the first see A985953 and the older data. I do see a decided increase though in the number of online people, we're now consistenly up at 100+ in the evenings, but it still drops right down in the mornings.

spelugx

Clever. Good work. I've never seen more than about 185-190 on-line at once.

Anyway, someone 'official' needs to do the stats properly to see if the site is waxing or waning.

If it's getting more active but receiving less PR contibutions, then yes, it's perhaps becoming a chatroom.

(... which I hasten to add is not necessarily wholly bad).

I'm surprised about Hoovooloo's comment that people are willing to strike because they hate work and therefore wouldn't go on strike from a "fun" activity. Let me explain why:

If you go on strike from a fun activity, what's the worst that happens to you? You have less fun. Maybe for a night, maybe for a week, maybe for a year. But you still have the basic necessitiies of life.

If you go on strike from work, you risk losing your job and livelihood. If you have a family/dependents, then your putting them at risk too. You risk losing food, clothing, shelter, etc.

I think you have a narrow perspective if you think the reason people strike is because they hate work anyway - when you go on strike you take a big risk. At least, that's how it is in the US. Maybe that's not the case in other countries - but then again, maybe that's why their willing to go on strike at the drop of hat.

I feel bad about talking about this, cause I feel like I'm exacerbating something that we should just let drop, end, and be done with, let the wounds heal, etc. etc. But I do feel an ombudsmen is a good idea.

I can't think of anything that warrants a strike, the only reason I mention it is because Hoo was complaining about "no recourse", and playing devils advocate I brought it up.

dave

"If you go on strike from a fun activity, what's the worst that happens to you? You have less fun."

And in todays world, that's unforgiveable. We're working long hours with a lot of stress... we want our fun NOW. It's our RIGHT. Right?

And why would someone decide to have less fun? For someone else's possible benefit? Doubtful. We're in different spaces here, I think.

"Maybe for a night, maybe for a week, maybe for a year. But you still have the basic necessitiies of life."

Show me one person who understands what the real basic necessities of life are, and I'll show you a Buddhist monk.

For instance, I remember very clearly seeing an interview with a miner's wife during the 1984 strike. Things were so bad, she said, that they'd had to sell the VCR. At that time, in my class of over thirty kids at school, precisely two lived in a home with a VCR. Yet NOT having one was already an indicator of poverty to this woman.

I'd suggest many people here already may regard their internet connection as a basic necessity of life.

"If you go on strike from work, you risk losing your job and livelihood. If you have a family/dependents, then your putting them at risk too. You risk losing food, clothing, shelter, etc."

True. But sometimes if you DON'T go on strike you risk losing that anyway, don't you? So the lower risk strategy is to strike - else why do it?

"I think you have a narrow perspective if you think the reason people strike is because they hate work anyway - when you go on strike you take a big risk."

I think people go on strike from work because they need the money or safer conditions or whatever. What I was getting at was, that if their job was something they fundamentally enjoyed, something that they would be prepared to do for nothing or even pay to do, would they strike? And if YOU enjoyed your job, found it entertaining, fulfilling, varied, safe, and it paid enough to keep you alive - what would it take to make you withdraw your labour?

Again, I would ask you - what on earth could possibly ever cause a "strike" on h2g2? I can't think of anything. If the Iraq policy didn't (and it didn't), nothing will.

"At least, that's how it is in the US. Maybe that's not the case in other countries - but then again, maybe that's why their willing to go on strike at the drop of hat."

Yeah, you could be right. The French are on strike again...

H.

Maybe budhist monks can go with out food water and shelter. Maybe they can't. But not all people can be budhist monks. It's pretty ridiculous of you to argue over the definition of "necessities" in this way.
I'm also going to ignore your initial comment about giving up fun as being unforgiveable, in my opinion that's nonsensical media gibberish that you've regurgittated. I'm not exactly sure for who's benefit...

I think the VCR comment from the woman indicated something else - it's not that she lost a VCR, it's that she had to sell a prized personal possesion. I think whether or not you're rich or poor, when you have to start selling personal possesions just to get by, it hurts. Can you possibly even imagine what it would be like to start choosing among your personal possesions, deciding what to sell just so you wouldn't starve (or have the heat shut off, be evicted, house foreclosed etc..)

Your initial comment was that people strike from work because they don't like work. I merely pointed out that striking was a fairly serious action. I agree with your new stance that if you don't go on strike, you can risk losing everything anyway. But the new point only enhances the idea that strikes, and strike related issues are much more serious than merely being based on whether or not people "like" their jobs.

I can say that yes, even if people truly love their jobs they'll be willing to go on strike. I'm in grad school, and I love it. But we're getting a royal screw job with our current stipend levels...it's way below the cost of living. I'm completely ready to go on strike. My reason is because, 1st yes I want more money in order to live better (which I consider reasonable). But the second is that if we're succesful, then the grad students who come next will also live better. I also worry about my schools ability to attract talent if the stipends aren't competitive...The point is, the issues surrounding our potential unionizing & striking are much more important than my personal enjoyment. In some ways, because I cherish this experience, and the ability of people to have this experience, I am further convinced of the need to strike, to maintain a decent standard of living, and thus the ability of people to go to grad school. Also, if the costs ski rocket, and the stipends don't keep pace, then only the richies will be in grad school - and I think everyone can agree that is bad policy.

"Maybe budhist monks can go with out food water and shelter."

Hoovooloo never said they went without those things. Those _are_ definitive necessities. The monks tend rely on other people to provide these though. So obviously not all people can be Buddhist monks of that parasitic kind. Where I disagree with HVL is that that is the only category of people who understand necessities.

"giving up fun as being unforgiveable"

You shouldn't ignore this as to do so shows a lack of education. Pleasure is one of the most primitive and strong drives in humans and other animals.

"had to sell a prized personal possesion"

Yes that would hurt (and also be less effective than not acquiring one in the first place since the resale value is so low). The larger point is that many people regard frivolous luxuries such as satellite dishes as necessities of life. They actively go on spending benefit money on such things instead of on food and simultaneously whinge that they are living on/below the poverty line.

"strike related issues are much more serious"

Well that would decrease the likelihood of any sort of an h2g2 strike since many researchers and staff clearly don't take the guide aspect seriously at all. If they did, they wouldn't be putting in substandard collaborative entries, damaging other entries with ignorant editorial interference and excluding technical entries on the basis of spurious excuses about graphics being a difficult issue.

That brings us back to Peer Review again. If a sub-ed or editor is doing more than merely proof-read and typeset the entries of those who are bad at English then PR has already failed. The scouts should not be picking things until content issues are resolved. Associated graphics could be peer reviewed at the same time as text. There's no difference. The importance and accuracy of them should be assessed at that point as with all the other content and if they pass muster then the staff should blob them. They blob enough trivial stuff of their own that the excuse of this being difficult is ludicrous. Some entries already have more than one contributor for the text and the editors don't interfere with who those are. So it should be irrelevant who provides the graphics (eg if someone needs help from another researcher because they don't have the software or skills).