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

Do you think they feel threatened by us?

I just loved this bit...

"wikipedia policy is that external sites like h2g2 should not be linked to - rather the material (if there is any) which is unique to h2g2 should be used to make the wikipedia entry better."

Vicky - maybe you could politely point out that due to the copyright restrictions on BBC websites - anyone copying hootoo entries into Wiki is likely to find a hoard of bbc lawyers baying at their heels.

They may be ill-informed enough to feel threatened.

Their reason doesn't add up:

<>

h2g2 has to be unique beyond Wiki's brilliant prose , as the guidelines are far more relaxed, surely.

"rather the material (if there is any) which is unique to h2g2 should be used to make the wikipedia entry better."

Now that rubs me up the wrong way... I don't know much about wiki but that to me reeks of plagarism!

*whispers so Jims doesn't hear her*

I dare one of you to go and say that....


*looks around to make sure no-one else was listening...

The two seem to contradict each other, don't they?

If the information is used, hootoo gets used as a reference. But it should be quoted as a reference as far as possible. perhaps they'd appreciate a few extra references...

That does seem a bit silly. Even if much of the information on the two entries is essentially the same, what does Wiki lose? Not that many people will actually use the external links anyway, and if they do they will probably have already read the wiki article.

To go back to an earlier point - I've been here for nearly 4 years now (so not the old guard, but not a newbie either - I've come accross pretty much everyone in this convo at some point or another), and while I do feel that the site has changed, I don't think it's neccesarily for the worse.

The thing is, h2g2 is (and as far as I can tell, has always been) very fluid. Staff memers and researchers come and go, but the site remains. Obviously everyone has a different perspective on this. I would point, though, to this idea of the AViators - which sounds fabulous, by the way - as an example of how the site is moving forward, not back.

Just my .

I'd also like to say I'm very impressed by how reasonable and even-toned this discussion has been. There's been civilised disagreement but no bashing, and I think that's great.

It would be great if you could ask them to explain exactly what they think a primary source is VV, and if they think Wiki is one...

Coming in late to the conversation, but I have dutifully read the backlog.

So, I typed "XTC" into my search engine of choice, Yahoo! (which is not, contrary to some people's idea, the same as Google) - being a subject close to my heart.

There were a large number of results, and a gratifyingly large number of them related to XTC, not to anything drug- or porn-related (I think Yahoo! don't allow porn links any more anyway). But no sign of that brilliantly-researched and written EG entry on XTC: A3100285 . Top entry was XTC's official website, which was reassuring. Wiki's entry came in at number 8.

Then I typed in "XTC - The Band" (the actual title of the h2g2 entry)... top entry was, again, the band's official website. Second entry was - gasp! - the h2g2 entry! Third was Chalkhills, an XTC fan site that has been running for decades (how did h2g2 get above this?) Wiki's entry came in at number 5 this time.

The wiki entry has obviously been updated since I last read it - there were factual inaccuracies in it before which have now been corrected. There's also a link to the h2g2 EG entry.

Anyway, just a little ramble to keep you all amused...not sure what my point was, if anything? Possibly that we're not quite as obscure as we might think.

RF

http://www.onelook.com/?w=+XTC&ls=a

http://www.onelook.com/?w=+random&ls=a

http://www.onelook.com/?w=+encyclopaedia&ls=a

Can I suggest that an A page gets set up on how to link to h2g2 from wiki, so that the standard is easily available once this thread disappears.

kea: "Can I suggest that an A page gets set up on how to link to h2g2 from wiki, so that the standard is easily available once this thread disappears."



It would really be more appropriate as a Wikipedia style-manual page (or an addition to an already existing style-manual). Someone who has a firmer foot in both camps than either of us could perhaps deal with that.

TRiG.

"rather the material (if there is any) which is unique to h2g2 should be used to make the wikipedia entry better"

oooh, theft! Wonderful! Most of the content I add to h2g2 is unique - because I went out and researched in in *real life* not just picked it up from another website - I have to rely on some written content of course - I wasn't around 1000 years ago for instance. But I do visit most of the place I write about for added information. I don't want it added to a wikipedia article though, as I write specifically for h2g2 - I want to make h2g2 better, not bloody wikipedia.

I can't believe their guidelines say that if there's a great article out there someone, take anything you fancy from it!

>> I can't believe their guidelines say that if there's a great article out there someone, take anything you fancy from it! <<

You can't? I find it ridiculously easy to believe. Plagiarism on the internet? Say it ain't so!

RF

Yeah, but to have it actually part of the rules of a site seems a bit strange.

Imagine h2g2's rules:

You may not:

Spit
Swear
But stealing is compulsory

I've set up a template on Wikipedia to link to h2g2 articles.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Guide_for_h2g2_Researchers#Linking_to_h2g2_Guide_Entries

For an explanation.

For an example see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weetabix

Hi Stu,

This bit: "The BBC claims that it owns the 'overall copyright' to all Edited Entries, and so they cannot be moved to any other site, including Wikipedia, without permission."

Is wrong. Read the section on 'Copyright' in the House Rules (a link to which can be found at the bottom of every h2g2 page).

"It's important to note that you still own the copyright to everything you contribute to h2g2. This means you are perfectly free to take what you have written and re-publish it somewhere else."

What the BBC claims is the right to a non-exclusive license to publish the content as we see fit. This leaves us free to create things like the Mobile site and the Edited Guide without having to ask permission. The copyright still rests with the person who created the content.