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

One of the artificially/editorially created problems is graphics. Most of my specialist subjects are affected. Some have been covered/started by other people in a less adequate way by using links to external sites. Usually, unless they are incompetent, the best person to do the graphics is the expert author. Cefpret was treated quite badly for suggesting an astronomy project including self-supplied graphics. That project now looks like it is finally going ahead in some form. It remains to be seen whether the intended graphics get accepted.

In contrast, certain favoured people are allowed to put in graphics whenever they want - even if those break the guidelines and aren't actually very good. On other occasions when the editors have conceded that an article could do with (non-front-page) graphics, as well as excluding the author they haven't even offered the work to all the CAs for the best qualified alternative. So in both cases the quality of the guide suffers as a result. I had joined specifically to improve the technical/scientific side of things and have been both passively and actively prevented from doing this by the staff.

So not only are the rules wrong but much of what does occur is against the stated rules and handled in a despicably hypocritical and underhand manner behind the scenes - presumably in the hope that no-one will notice the double-standards. The secret rules of the site and the variable application of them only became apparent some time after I joined. They are not publicised on the main pages.

This is about as polite as I can get on the subject and will still probably get banned from the site for speaking out. I have already received libellous "hate" mail on a similar matter. I must be feeling unusually reckless today.

SEF - I get the impression that you're overreacting somewhat in *one* way, specifically "[I] will still probably get banned from the site for speaking out".

No, you won't. The Editors have agreed not to do things like that and there's a Transgressions Procedure in place that works to prevent that. If you have a reasonable problem, then mentioning it, as long as you're not insulting anyone, is fine.

"One of the artificially/editorially created problems is graphics. Most of my specialist subjects are affected. Some have been covered/started by other people in a less adequate way by using links to external sites. Usually, unless they are incompetent, the best person to do the graphics is the expert author. Cefpret was treated quite badly for suggesting an astronomy project including self-supplied graphics."

I think this could be easily solved. It's about being sensible - the CAs, that is. With scientific entries and those which constitute special or uncommon knowledge, they ought to contact the author who can then mail them mock-ups in Word or whatever. That way, the images can be done by the CAs, but they'd be more likely to be right.

The secret rules of the site and the variable application of them only became apparent some time after I joined. They are not publicised on the main pages.

I agree that some things are left unexplained by the help pages and need clarifying. That's something that can be worked on - look at the shiny, fluffy new Writing-Guidelines for an example - they were worked on in a group!

Whoami?

For front page entries the CAs are specifically banned from contacting the author - something else with which I disagree.

However, for other entries I repeat that they are never offered to the CAs as a whole in the first place. They are done by one particular person who I am going to have to avoid insulting (as per your second paragraph - hence part of my former reluctance to say anything at all on the matter) even if the perceived insults are actually merely statements of fact.

This is not good. Time for change, I suspect.

Well that's what I thought (and why I joined h2g2 and CAs). However, the staff seem to like things the way they are. If they had been honest up front I would have known to not bother coming anywhere near the site or even to have started a public petition to change the rules. But with everything (including the unwritten rules) being conducted in some secret conspiracy behind the scenes I had to do the equivalent of having my own "conspiracy". Since they are the establishment in power, I guess that makes me some sort of mini-rebellion...

Hoovooloo seems to have been put in a not entirely disimilar situation.

Come to the meet in the summer if you can make it and meet the Italics. They're really very nice people and will listen to argument if it's done the right way... eventualy.

Whoami?

Although they'll listen, will they understand? By the sound of things this has all happened out of ignorance, rather than malice. I would not expect the italics to do anything like this on purpose, they're not like that.

Maybe if we used very specific questions, it would help?

Why is the rule regarding contacting the author the complete oposite in the CAs to the Sub-eds?

Tango

Subs aren't compelled to contact Authors - we're encouraged, and I had to fight for that, sort of.

I presume it has something to do with not knowing if you're Editor's Choice for the day until you actually are.

Why don't we work out exactly, concisely what we want. Then I'll type something up under joint credits to ask for it.

Whoami?

*throwing my in*

When I got an editor's choice, I wish I would have known, so I would have been home to see it, now I have to wait for the circular gallery to be updated for the front page blob, and I've lost the little introduction forever. Is there any [real] reason why this can't be leaked? For instance, spook is asking why his entry is pending so long, and all I can do is speculate.

I'm starting to get a distinct and worrying sense of meglomania in places around this site...

Tango

I didn't know the circular gallery wasn't being updated - though I'd noticed the best of page hadn't been. I think Amy normally does that from the CA group persona (I'd have to load yet another slow h2g2 page to check). She's apparently been busy but nonetheless still around quite a bit. If you tell me the article, Jodan, I can tell you the blob number right now. Otherwise I might go through the tedium of updating the page later. The communicate image is lost forever (unless it was one of Jimster's) or you ask the right CA nicely. The text is probably gone forever unless Rho was the editor. [summoning the omnipresent one by single mention of his name?]

With regard to the subs (and staff) editors contacting authors, I think it is vital they be properly consulted. It is another reason for not writing EG articles - they can be completely ruined by lack of understanding of the subject (or even of English ).

Tango: How so, Tango? And be careful what you say, you know why...

Are we wishing for too much? I've gotton that same feeling, with a few petitions springing up recently, though I don't have much of a grounds for comparison, since I've only been on the site for a few months...

SEF: thanks, it was 'Seinfeld'- the TV Series. Sadly Rho was not the subed, but he is subbing one of my entries right now .

F71550?thread=135086

H.

Rho (there's the 3rd time...) isn't an editor, so doesn't get to write the text, so what do you mean?

There seem to be a lot of things that are happening that i can't work out a reason for other than to reinforce the hierarchy. I'm too tired to go into details now.

Tango

I think Rho keeps the text as souvenirs.

Hoovooloo. How long did it take you to drag that ancient thread out of the ether from the era of Chris?

Whoami?

I see SEF is updating the circular galleries.

90 seconds, counting download time. You don't want a memory like mine...

H.

* performs the correct summoning incantation for Rho *

Actually it may be possibly to get the frontpage GuideML by other methods, I'll give it a go tommorow (for those in the know, see the Bugfinder's threads).

Now my (you can use my name in support of whatever you end up writing).

I like comparing the CAs and the Subs as they both occupy important places in the editorial process where a lot of work gets done (or not done if you're me). The Subeditors have a very transparent process as their editing happens on site. On the otherhand putting picture on entries has always been something not visible since the artist used to be in house. Now that we have the CAs, the system could change as the people in the system has changed. But there seems to be a certain reluctance to change somethings, but an eagerness to change others. The thing I would like to change is the role of the CAs, instead of them being the 'guardians' of _all_ the art on the site, they need to simply be a group which creates the graphics needed for the edited guide. We don't need a *single* group for all art work. So I really don't think its working well in its current format since it's not well enough defined.

Oh, yes, I remember Chris, nice guy (or perhaps I just wasn't seeing flaws back then).

spelugx

Some front page stuff is still done in-house (eg the Canadian mounties one) rather than by the CAs. ThePost only incidentally involves the CAs since much of that is done by non-CAs or by CAs in their "Post hats". I don't see why other graphics shouldn't be added if they pass approval (or even get a little tidying up with co-operation between author and CA). After all, most of The Post graphics do not match the EG standards whereas that of other contributors might but they don't want to join the CAs full time. Under current policy they would _still_ not be allowed to illustrate their own articles as a CA unless they are one of the favoured few (staff or staff "pet").

Chris *was* a nice guy. My brain hurts from frantic subbing.

Goodnight, everyone. I'll see y'all tomorrow. * on keyboarjukmuixcv...*

Whoami?