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

"I am simply saying that PR is not the best place for that kind of thing. Subbies, Curators, Editors and Feedbackers are better. "

That's the ideal - and that's the way it was when there were plenty of staff. Each entry was subbed by a sub, then by an Editor, then had another check by another Editor before it went live.

Now there are less Editors they can't be as thorough as they used to be, so, like many other tasks on h2g2, they've passed that job back to the Researchers.

I can't point out a spelling error, or something that doesn't fit the house style if I see it, simply because I could just change it myself (as a Curator) once it hits the front page. Commenting in PR should mean the Researcher learns to do it correctly - who wants to keep doing something 'wrong'?

As for not having 1st person entries - it's to do with updating. How can I update someone's personal experiences of, say, the town they live in? But I can update it if it's written as a factual account and something changes.

"I can't point out a spelling error, or something that doesn't fit the house style if I see it, simply because I could just change it myself (as a Curator) once it hits the front page. Commenting in PR should mean the Researcher learns to do it correctly - who wants to keep doing something 'wrong'?"

Should have been 'I can't not point out'.

I understood if you were writing about an illness or something like that - that's changed your life, you could write about it first person .... but I'm not sure where I got that impression.


If you're going to be a Scout again then you can have great debates with the others and try to change from within.

I posted a lovely, lucid, well-reasoned post, clicked 'Post Message', and then the 'Net went down and I lost it. So just pretend there's something lucid and well-reasoned here .

Hi Jodan.

I've been away from PR for quite a long time, largely because real life has been kind of taking away from my time for writing, but also because I suffer from a little of the 'Wikipedia is so much bigger (not necessarily better) why should I bother'- syndrome. I'd detected hints that there was trouble (old entries showing up on the front page more frequently).

I have to say, however, that back when I was churning entries out, it seems to me that I managed to make a few quirky stylish pieces and I can't recall ever having trouble getting them through PR (for example, A2622205, A2773316, A3935892, and, particularly quirky, A2316016). The only piece that I really think should have been allowed into the Edited Guide that wasn't was, of course, A2313136.

Have the guidelines changed so that I couldn't write like that now? Or has the population of PR changed? or have the attitudes?

If it is the population and/or the attitudes than perhaps you should be (and with this thread I suspect you are) asking for the active peers themselves to open up to the types of entries that used to go merrily through.

Yeah laconian That was one very well reasoned and lucid post.


I'll second that.

You're too kind .

On a slightly different tack, I think it's a pity the search engine isn't better. I wonder how many people actually consult the guide as opposed to random browsing, or confining their reading to areas they frequent.

"If it is the population and/or the attitudes than perhaps you should be (and with this thread I suspect you are) asking for the active peers themselves to open up to the types of entries that used to go merrily through."

I agree. There's only so much that changing a help page will do. Attitudes need to change. For that to happen, minds need to change, which is why I'm attempting this dialogue with anyone who wants to debate the subject.

OK, I'm recovered enough to do a shortened version of my beloved lost post.

As far as I am concerned, first person entries *could* be incorporated into the EG. I'm sure there are some wonderful pieces in people's heads, travelogues and the like, and these should be showcased. The Post or UnderGuide could concievably do this, but I think there's a case for incorporating first-person factual entries into the EG. But then, is that what the EG is for? There are other ways (Post and UG) to showcase entries that don't meet the current EG guidelines. That said, these are my personal criteria for an EG entry:

Readable. This is what sets us apart from Wiki, in my opinion. For example, some of the maths entries on Wiki are pretty heavy going, while the maths on Hootoo is explained in a simpler way. Perhaps this way sacrifices some technical detail, but it makes up for it by being a better practical introduction to the layman.

Spelling and Grammar. The EG needs standards to main reputability.

Factual. Otherwise what's it doing in the EG? We have other places for fiction.

There was another one, which I've forgotten. Can't have been that important.

However, I don't think it's a good idea to stress Hootoo's 'quirky' nature overly. People will feel the need to force this quirkiness, resulting in awkward entries. That's why I chose readability as a criterion - everyone has a different style, but everyone can produce something clear and readable.

<>

Yes, not everyone can do quirky. Some of the entries that try to do quirky and/or funny are just forced. Not every subject is suited to quirky either.

I feel there is a place for factual entries that cover things too esoteric for Wiki and that are written in an interesting way and with more personal input than Wiki's style allows for.

Generally, this researcher is in agreement with the generally agreeable tone.

I'm particularly interested in the comments with regard to First Person entries. My only attempt so far made it into the EG after a little in the way of having things pointed out.

There are very few subjects (only one or two so far, & I'm not at all confident in those) that I feel I could make a fair fist at, without at least a smattering.

There is one, however that I'm currently working on (for a separate reason) that would require at least an introduction in the first person, and another in mind that would require it throughout - It'd be meaningless without.

I would be happy if the rules were softened to allow such presentations - but with the caveat "don't be surprised if PR discourages or rejects"

There are one or two first-person accounts already in there. A855209 is perhaps the most remarkable. I think it went into the EG before the UG was founded. (A1103329 was created 8th July 2003.)

There are a couple of others, such as A169652 (created 29th September 1999) and A4643336 (created 23rd August 2005). (I knew of these, and found them through the categorisation system. I <./>search</.>ed for "Lynn"*, but, as I couldn't remember the illness or the destination, I had to <./>browse</.> for the other two entries.

TRiG.

*I accidentally used the BBC search, not the h2g2 search, but still found it.

Yup A531848 is one of my favorite examples of this as well.

Since you brought up the UG, let me be very clear, as briefly as I can. The UnderGuide is not a place for entries intended for the Edited Guide which were thrown out of Peer Review. That is not its purpose. I wrote the UnderGuideLines. There are three guidelines for UG entries, and the third is that in order for an entry to be accepted into the UG, it must be unsuitable for the EG. All of the entries you linked to are great examples of how the EG can use its platform to educate, stimulate and move people in ways that an encyclopedia cannot. That is one of the Edited Guide's most valuable traits. The UG is very careful to not step on the Edited Guide's toes.

There's really no reason why these entries shouldn't be allowed in. The idea that it's difficult to update these entries is not a valid one, I think, because there's no need to update entries when they're from a particular perspective. If someone wants more information to be in the guide, the Writing Guidelines suggest, "If there's already an Edited Entry that covers the subject, approach the topic from a different angle, rather than writing a new entry on exactly the same thing." So there's no reason why we should worry about updating personal entries, because if more information needs to be added, it can be in a different entry. I don't really foresee any scenario when a personal perspective entry would need to be updated, though I'm willing to listen if someone wants to suggest such a scenario.

Hiya Jodan

A quick scan of the backthread suggests you're a little beleaguered here. Though not as beleaguered as you used to be in the Good Old Days, of course. Maybe you could do with some help from a fellow Punchbag from the Past?

The first thing that people really need to get into their heads is that an Edited Guide with fewer/looser/less ferociously enforced/no Guidelines would not exclude any of the Entries that go in now. It would instead allow us to include ADDITIONAL Entries. This means that everyone who criticises your suggestion is not actually making a defence of their own tastes and preferences. They're just denying other people the right to theirs.

The worst thing about the Guidelines is the mindset they reinforce. Somewhere along the way, some particularly soulless individual (I've got my theories about who) started editing using a checklist, and the habit somehow caught on. Nobody seems to question it, but it's a bizarre thing to do. It stifles creativity and personal interpretation. It enforces uniformity, and in writing uniformity is the precursor of boredom.

The Guidelines were written by someone a bit too close to the encyclopedia mindset. h2g2 is a rubbish encyclopedia though. It isn't comprehensive, it isn't accurate, it isn't concise and it doesn't even have a proper index. Plus Wiki has seized that angle and gone off into the next county with it. End of story.

The Guidelines wouldn't be too bad if they were just guidelines. There are only about two places in the subtext where they say something truly stupid. There are actually several places where they say something a lot more sensible than the prevailing interpretation of them.

There are several good Guidelines that get corrupted or ignored:
"Write in your own words, in a style that you're comfortable with", Just make sure it's not a style that offends the bullies, that's all.
"There are certain topics that do benefit from being told in the first person". No, sorry, way too subtle for a pedant, that one.
"We're looking for balanced entries rather than subjective rants". In other words, opinion-pieces are fine provided both sides of a case are put. There are few true essays in the Edited Guide because of the persistent misinterpretation of this one.

The bloodiest battleground, though, is:
"Writing about a past event is usually factual, but don't attempt to dramatise it...". I have no idea why facts shouldn't be dramatised, unless we really are trying to be the World's Worst Encyclopedia. IMO, this one instruction ensures that the best writing in hootoo will forever be outside the Edited Guide.

In the end, most of the problems are about personalities, and the Guidelines only serve to lend authority to inflexible standpoints. In a lot of cases, I have the feeling that the bossiest reviewers are the RL underachievers, clinging to this one chance to feel important. It's a pity, because much of the writing they stifle is a lot better company than they are.

This has gone on long enough. A reiteration of the first point is in order. Less strict Guidelines cost us nothing of what we already have. They just admit extra content. h2g2 is short of content these days. Taken together, these facts surely mean that we have to lighten up.

Eloquently put

Some of those entries were outstanding enough that an exception was made. Some people have a lot of exceptions to their name due to who they are.

I don't like personal experiences in the Guide like that, but I can appreciate how it's going to be really difficult to tell anyone who gone through an awful experience that they can't get their entry into the Guide. I've done it though, and I can tell you that it didn't make me popular.

Some Researchers have taken their tragedies and written entries that fit, and they've gone in, and in those cases I think adding personal experiences to the entry is entirely valid - I like it being in italics in those cases.

Being able to update entries *is* valid, because that was the whole idea of the Guide - something that could be kept updated by the people who use it.

Jimster put it the best: F113471?thread=245112&skip=60&show=20#p3066257

The point of the Edited Guide is to collate as much material as we can about the *shared* experience of life on Earth. Even in instances where the research might appear exoteric or obscure, there's still that possibility that there might be another Researcher out there who knows a little bit about the subject and so could contribute a little bit more to the entry, either via Peer Review, or by posting to the bottom of the entry.

Hello, can we draw your attention to this week's new Talking Point: What Should We Do With h2g2? As ever, your thoughts and considered opinions would be most welcome:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/A29268390

""We're looking for balanced entries rather than subjective rants". In other words, opinion-pieces are fine provided both sides of a case are put. There are few true essays in the Edited Guide because of the persistent misinterpretation of this one."

Perhaps a branch of the categorisation system clearly denoting essays as opinion pieces (albeit balanced ones)? Of course they must be well-researched and balanced, but it's often hard to keep compete impartiality. I think essays do have a place, as long as they are marked as such.

That shared experience is what h2g2 can be really good at. Shared experience by posting to the bottom of the entry is brilliant, discussion prompted or provoked, sharing knowledge or enthusiasm - brilliant when it happens and one of h2g2's real design strengths.

Shared in PR is great too. More of that can't be anything but good. More people involved would bring in more knowledge and more chance of finding reviewers with interests in the subject. And different angles on the subject. The wider the appeal, the better it works.

Restricting it limits more than just the numbers of entries submitted. And it's the same if site members are divided into separate parts of the site. Separate sandboxes.

I think shared experience/information needn't always need to lead to an update. When the entry's such that it can be it's great but just as good when it leads to a new entry, or even when it simply stays in the conversation threads. Variety being the spice of life 'n all...

The articles which I see provoking conversation threads most are those which stir the reader up enough to prod him into action. To get new members this way, well you _really_ need to want to say your piece to go through the BBC's registration process just to leave a comment.

Different people are stirred up by different things, can be the drive to share facts, correct facts, can be provocative or controversial statements, can be wit, personality in the writing, strong feeling...

I can't get past seeing that more differenece and more variety is only a plus.



On the direct first-person personal experience type entries - sometimes they work for an audience, but sometimes they only work for the writer. Like the difference between an article and a diary entry. Saying no to the latter's very difficult thing, takes courage, and yes, likely to be unpopular. But a generic, automatic 'no' loses more than we gain. Imo, of course.