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

Can anyone give me one good reason why we shouldn't trash the Writing Guidelines and start from scratch? Perhaps one good reason why the Edited Guide should exclude informative, quality entries?

What I'm asking is, can anyone defend the Edited Guide's status quo? Can anyone defend the fact that we're working harder and longer to become a poor man's wikipedia? Why are we running away from what makes h2g2 different when we're beaten in every other single measurable category? These are my questions for the h2g2 community. Someone had better set me straight, because I'm starting to think that h2g2 is descending into the rank of 'ordinary' websites when it has the potential to be extraordinary.

Jordan: I don't do much writing - Not good at it / Don't enjoy it much / Not good at it / ...

However,

>> Perhaps one good reason why the Edited Guide should exclude informative, quality entries? <<

What entries?

----

>>when we're beaten in every other single measurable category?<<

What categories? How do you measure them?

----

>>h2g2 is descending into the rank of 'ordinary' websites when it has the potential to be extraordinary.<<

Why is it 'descending'? It seems to me to be out-of-the-ordinary (if it's copied then it soon ceases to be extraordinary, by definition).

----

We need rules, guidelines and a means to edit/exclude some material, by common consent, else it could lead to everyman's rant being presented as 'informative, quality entries'.

Surely on of our great strengths is Peer Review.
The whole thing is run by its members (with a few permanent staff to monitor things - mainly with a light touch). Pretty democratic in my view.

What one person sees as an informative, quality entry doesn't necessarily mean that it is - but Common Consent, here on this site, very probably does. (Do you believe everyone who stands up on their hind legs and declares "Vote for me, I am your bestest leader"?)

As far as I know, no one is excluded from membership, unless they earn it- No?

----

If you knows of a better 'ole...

Jordan, I've just paid a little attention to your more recent journal entires.

I'm relatively new here, so cannot compare now with the good old days of h2g2.
I do know that this is not the country or the world I was brought-up in. I don't like it, but that's the way it is.
Things change, and that's the way it is.

To me, this site is special, and I have taken your PS comments on board and will try a little harder.

Take a holiday - but don't go, please.

Which one of the Guidelines do you not like, Jodan?

As far as I can see, the Guidelines divide into two categories, sensible, obvious advice, and what defines the Guide.

Sensible and obvious:-

- Be original
- Fill in the gaps
- Plan your entry
- Write about what you're interested in
- Research your entry thoroughly
- Write in your own style rather than that of Douglas Adams
- Try to make your entry balanced
- Don't try too hard to be funny
- Write Entries of appropriate length
- Do not copy wholesale from other sources
- Try to use good spelling and grammar

I don't think anybody could object to any of those. Guidelines which define the Guide:

- Write about reality
- Be instructive, informative and factual
- Write about subjects that can be verified

Should we be writing fact or fiction? If we start writing fiction and publishing it in the Guide, then it is no longer The Guide. Surely there are plenty of fiction-writing sites around. Some of them even produce good fiction. What makes h2g2 special is that it is an interesting and (we are told) popular factual Guide to the World. There's nothing there preventing you from writing entries that are in the form of poetry, quizzes, question and answer sessions and so on, as long as it is instructive, informative and factual.

There's one final Guideline which seems to cause many people a problem:-

- Avoid writing in the first person

From what I have seen, this is not a major problem. Personal reminisences can easily be put into quotations.

So again I ask, which Guideline do you not like?

One good reason for not trashing them is that they work. If it ain't broken, don't fix it.

I have no idea really what you are talking about.

You think the Writing Guidelines work Mina? I take it you see no problem with the way that the EG is going?

Éowyn, you've done something horrible! You've butchered and misplaced the most important guideline of all Write in your own style. It says nothing about Douglas Adams, and I don't think it's common sense at all. It's the only one which defines the guide as itself. The three you single out seem like pretty well common sense to me.

"From what I have seen, this [first person writing] is not a major problem. Personal reminisences can easily be put into quotations."

It's not the end of the world, but I hesitate from putting an entry into quotations rather than the body because then it seems supplemental to the overall entry rather than the core of it. The Avoid Writing in the First Person guideline actually allows quite a bit of leeway in allowing first person entries into the Guide.

"So again I ask, which Guideline do you not like?"

Personally, I think we'd do fine with five guidelines (Write with Clarity, Write with Élan, Consider your Reader, Choose your Topic Carefully and Do Not Plagiarize or Invent Facts) but my biggest problem with the WG is that they're currently not enforced in a way that promotes quality writing. If 'Write in your own style' was enforced like the spelling and grammar guideline is enforced (much too stringently, in my opinion), then this would be a much different place.

The Edited Guide is for fact, in my opinion, though. The limits of this would probably be dramatic interpretation of fact.

Hey Rod...
"What entries?"

The entries that are thrown out of PR because they're written in an unconventional way. The entries that are never submitted to PR because the authors have seen similar things go down in flames. Worst of all, the entries that are never written for the same reason. There are more than a few.

"What categories? How do you measure them?"

Quantity of entries, quantity of information, accessibility, reliability, speed and consistency were what I was thinking of when I wrote that.

"Why is it 'descending'? It seems to me to be out-of-the-ordinary (if it's copied then it soon ceases to be extraordinary, by definition)."

It's a good question. To me, it seems that it's descending because people keep losing interest in the Guide, because it doesn't offer them anything. When h2g2 becomes just like any other site on the internet, it wouldn't be extraordinary anymore.

"We need rules, guidelines and a means to edit/exclude some material, by common consent, else it could lead to everyman's rant being presented as 'informative, quality entries'."

Well, what's to stop any everyman from declaring his rant to be informative? The community, and more specifically the Peers, judge these things. No, I agree that this site is very democratic. I am not out to ruin a democracy, that's the very last thing that I'd want to see. The community-led aspect of the guide is perhaps its most important feature. I want the community to look at things a bit differently then?

just my , if grammar, punctuation and spelling were not reasonably strictly monitored and insisted upon for the edited guide, then I for one would not put as much store by it. Presentation, in this information age, can be everything.

You can put whatever you like (more or less) in th eun-edited guide, so I dont understand the problem?

"just my , if grammar, punctuation and spelling were not reasonably strictly monitored and insisted upon for the edited guide, then I for one would not put as much store by it. Presentation, in this information age, can be everything."

If I may, in my opinion this should be a matter for the Sub-Editors, not Peer Review. The most important thing surely is the quality of the entry, and the "presentation" is what makes it easy for the general population to read. The idea is the thing, not the constructs that bind it surely.

If its just about grammar, spelling, punctuation then yes it should be possible for the subeditor to sort it out if the writer can't or won't but a scout still feels the entry is good enough for the Edited Guide, but entries that don't meet the guidelines, wasn't the Underguide introduced to highlight these? Perhaps the Underguide should be given a higher profile.

"but entries that don't meet the guidelines"

But I think there are interpretations of the Guide Lines, which appear to not allow for style, or even to hear the researchers voice - when I don't think the Guide lines state this. There are occasions when this is probably inappropriate.

If I might quote Jim Lynn : "style is just as important as content in the Guide. We don't care what you say, as long as you say it with elan."

I don't think this is followed anywhere near enough, and I thin thats the problem.

*think

So the problem is that todays writers don't have style then


What does that have to do with opening the guide up .... surely that says more about those of us that are contributing.

"surely that says more about those of us that are contributing"

Theres certainly an element of that yes. But if the environment isn't condusive to creating entries like that - where it becomes excessively difficult to get an entry with style over one with perfect grammar, spelling, punctuation... etc without style then that lies with those creating the environment. And that constitutes a few people mostly including scouts.

I'm but I think you're talking nonsense.

Having read through most of the entries currently in PR, I think they display a lot of different styles and personalities and I'd like to anyone who has made the effort/is making the effort to write.

IMO the guide is good, the underguide is good and to relax the guidelines to let any rant in will result in the very rapid end of the guide. Our hosts have standards which we need to maintain to enjoy their hospitality, and I for one am willing to make the effort - there are of course other sites out there that will let you publish anything.

Rather than bash the Scouts it might be good if more people spent more time in PR encouraging people then.
But unless we are going to decide that grammar, spelling etc doesn't matter at all it needs to be sorted out some time and subeditors are in short supply I believe.

Great idea Blackberry Cat ..... if everyone went round to PR or the EGWW and helped us with our style and content it'd be great.


You are all welcome to vote and nominate for the entry of the month as well A28547616 - that way if you express your joy at reading an entry in a style which you like ..... it may encourage the author to continue and other readers to emulate.

"I'd like to anyone who has made the effort/is making the effort to write."

I appreciate the applause but it really isn't necesary.

"let any rant in will result in the very rapid end of the guide."

Who has said to let any rant in? With due respect I think I have spoken sense, and it is this remark which appears to be nonesensical. No one is saying let anything in.

I think you're talking nonsense because I haven't seen any of the things you're going on about .....


>>But I think there are interpretations of the Guide Lines, which appear to not allow for style, or even to hear the researchers voice <<

>>But if the environment isn't condusive to creating entries like that - where it becomes excessively difficult to get an entry with style over one with perfect grammar, spelling, punctuation...<<


PR is an open forum and the comments posted by everyone .... including Scouts are just suggestions - they can be taken by the author or not - I've seen many a guide entry go through without taking onboard any of the suggestions - and to be honest some of them could have done with taking the advice.

If we scrap the guidelines we are opening up the house to any rant - unless you are suggesting we replace the guidelines with a different set......


>>I appreciate the applause but it really isn't necesary.<<

I think it is.

"If we scrap the guidelines we are opening up the house to any rant - unless you are suggesting we replace the guidelines with a different set......"

If I'm not mistaken I think this is roughly what Jodan is proposing - or more to the point make the Guidelines clearer so that more entertaining guidelines are the norm rather than the exception - and by that I mean I enjoy reading some Wikipedia entries, but because of their content. On here I want to enjoy them because of their style.

"PR is an open forum and the comments posted by everyone .... including Scouts are just suggestions - they can be taken by the author or not - I've seen many a guide entry go through without taking onboard any of the suggestions - and to be honest some of them could have done with taking the advice."

I can only go off my own personal experience but I have worked hard to create entries in the past (probably going too far back in time now) that were then roundly cast out of hand, or because the style I had used was different I felt like mine was not popular in comparison to other more "normal" entries. And on balance this is my experience of talking to a number of people who no longer write for the Edited Guide

"I think you're talking nonsense because I haven't seen any of the things you're going on about ....."

And I think thats the problem. The people who aren't happy don't hang around Peer Review for long, unless your an awkward so and so like me . So you don't see them, or speak to them - not in that context anyway. If you understand what I mean - that you may talk to them, but never have to go head to head with them over an entry.



This is Jodans baby, so I can only speak for myself (of which I've probably done too much already). But my experience of Peer Review was not one I enjoyed, and I think that is in part because of the way it is currently structured. I would not like to discredit any of the volunteer groups for the work they do - because by definition they are working hard for free (and occasionally for the enjoyment of it ). But I do fear for the future of the site, and thats why I'm talking now, because I think we're losing people. And if all thats left is 5 people and a dog at the end of the day (which I'm sure some people would be happy with and they can just pass entries around), then we've lost.

"I think it is."

Nah I'm just diz guy you know

This argument wasn't about Peer Review, it was about the edited guide.

Of course that's what peer review is for!

Now, I've not written any guide entries yet, but I do check through peer review and try to find something that interests me so I can comment/ constructively criticise... It's an important part of the guide, I believe.