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

"It's an important part of the guide, I believe."

Aye it is. Well its the reason the site is here isn't it?

The only thing I have to say to this is - we get the PR we deserve - we're all free to step up to support any entry amd back up the author if it comes to a row over style or content. There's nothing worse than spending time writing something and submitting it to PR then no-one shows up to comment, so if we all pick our interpretation of the guidelines and comment on what we like in PR we'll get a different type of guide entry ... maybe.

... and I don't thinks it's fair for all the old-timers to try to change the rules just as us newbies are getting the hang of it.

So the crux of this argument is this (and I apologise if I have the wrong end of the stick):

"WRITE IN YOUR OWN STYLE" - should be rule one.

I agree. Up to a point.

The fact that we have a Peer Review system means that people's styles are altered, ever-so slightly by taking on board the constructive criticism thrown up in PR. That's why we end up with a sort of "h2g2 House Style" as writers take on board the same suggestions from the same people. The easiest way to rectify this?

Make sure that the people making suggestions are varied. Don't leave it up to the same old faces (I'd make a bet that at least 30% of PR suggestions are made by Gnomon ) and make PR an eclectic, supportive and vibrant place. Encourage writers to develop their own style, and suggest new and interesting stylistic devices. PR's the one part of h2g2 that really NEEDS the community to become more involved.

You know, what's interesting is, that I've never had the feeling that people's suggestions altered my style. Sure, they corrected my sometimes weird wording, wrong grammar or spelling, but every entry I've written so far is in my own style. As are Fizzy's entries, or SWL's, or ...the list is endless. I know that nobody could ever confuse something I have written with something -say- Fizzy has written.

No - your punctuation and grammar would be right.

Ahh, but that's not a matter of style.

That's why I really need PR.

The most important thing about the guidelines is that they're there to help people to write guide entries, not to hinder them. It's good to read through them before you start writing - to get you in the right frame of mind - but equally, reading a selection of Edited Entries will do the same thing.

I think people do a darned good job with the ones we've got. If you find them restrictive, then write the Entry anyway and see how the Peer Reviewers can help - they often can.

I don't know why you say I butchered the Guidelines. I cut and pasted them from the writing guidelines page. Those were not my words, they were the words of the Editors who wrote the Guidelines.

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

I have no problem with the majority of entries in the EG. Yes, there are less of them these days, but what else can be expected when the Beeb won't let us have any development so we can keep up with the rest of the world, they've stripped the staff down tothe absolute bare minimum, and their recruitment process is a joke?

I have a lot of respect for the way the site has been kept going by the Eds we have.

I can't see any of that is anything to do with the writing guidelines!

Could someone please post an example of an entry that got submitted to PR and thrown out as unsuitable? I'd like to see what we're talking about here.

I have to say I am with Jodan here. It never ceases to amaze me that anyone oculd really think there is that much point in the guide post Wiki.

That model (which lets face it in its mechanism is much closer really to the idea of the Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy than we are*) has totally blown us out of the water.

The one thing we do do better, quirky, is becoming less and less prevelant in the entries coming into the guide, some hounorable exceptions not withstanding.

The idea that we mayhap should change the way we structure the guide to get more quirkyness and less sub wiki, wiki articles is one well worht considering IMHO.

I used to be really into the guide (I have 10 solo entries to my name) but since Wiki hit it big I just do not see the point...

I'd say wiki is irrelevant - they're not in our league - I never look at wiki until I've finished an entry because it's so unreliable as a source. Their stuff puts me to sleep too. On hootoo the entries are all much more personal and interesting I think.

Maybe if someone could post the specific things that they think need to be done - as opposed to just saying we need quirky.

I'm with Icy - the guidelines are just that and what we make of them ... well that's down to us.

"the guidelines are just that and what we make of them ... well that's down to us."

I think thats largely the point people are making.

So if the people currently in PR aren't doing a good enough job, why don't the people who could do a better job turn up and do it.

"So if the people currently in PR aren't doing a good enough job, why don't the people who could do a better job turn up and do it."

Its not about doing a better job (as I think the Scouts do the job they do well, perhaps a little too well) as such. I guess its about knowing what kind of job to do - meaning we need directions on how to bring about more stylised entries. Hence the new guidelines.

I'm sorry but I've been through this thread again and I don't see any sign of new guidelines, the nearest thing is Jodan ...

>>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. <<

.... which doesn't appear to be proposing new guidelines but more like not being happy with the way the guidelines are operated.

Now, I've heard that there is a great shortage of Scouts and Sub-eds - and there is always a great shortage of comments in PR so I don't see a problem in Jodan and others dropping round there and changing the way things are done .... at least the things they don't like.

Well for my I think the whole PR process is a relative weakness.

I just think "wiki" system is fundamentally better. Whilst people might point out wiki can be boring, that is a deliberate reult of the type of entry they want. The wiki model could still work producing "hootoo style" entries if that was the desired outcome.

Like I said for my money it beggars belief that anyone could seriously say that out mechanism for creating an "online encyclopedia" is anything other than a poor, poor second to wiki....

Like I say I can only speak for me. I'm guessing Jodan is "open[ing] the Edited Guide up" to the community so we can kind of see what our options are. But I'm not going to put words in Jodans mouth, I'll let him do that.

Don't we have a Guide ... not an encyclopedia, that's why we have entries that have personality.