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

Well, partly inspired by the above, I've submitted a new Guide entry: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/F48874?thread=6680349

What really put me off peer review was an experience a few years back where I had a perfectly good entry, ready to go, sitting in peer review for six months without being picked. It had gathered a few favourable comments and some useful feedback, but just sat there gathering dust. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F88314?thread=404148 I'm still really proud of the resulting entry, and grateful for the useful feedback. I even had someone register on h2g2 just to comment on the edited guide version to say that it was the most useful article on Rawls that he'd found after hours of web searches! It was a real labour of love. Taking the subject of my MPhil thesis and turning it into a lay introduction for the average reader, making complex ideas as clear as possible. Sadly, the scouts at the time apparently weren't interested in any entry that took even a little bit of perseverance, and if I recall correctly, it was only found by a scout on clearing out duty. Since then I've only been back twice - both labours of love - on fencing for the Olympic sports project, and on visiting the Edinburgh Festival. Both are, I think, the best thing on the net on those subjects. Unless I can claim that about what I'm writing about, I don't really see a point in writing. Having said that, I'd love to have the motivation to finish my entry on Machiavelli, but I still don't have much confidence that it won't just sink to the bottom like the Rawls entry did.

(Refreshing this on my list.)

Cor, Otto, I was the first person to respond in PR as well. Ah well, in those days I had the time

Forgotten that it took so long to get picked though. I can see why that would put anybody off.

Mol

"Both are, I think, the best thing on the net on those subjects. Unless I can claim that about what I'm writing about, I don't really see a point in writing."

It's a very high aim, and there's nothing wrong with aiming high in the least! I'm just curious though - why do you set yourself this goal with writing, and (presumably) not everything else - ie. not play sport unless you can be a world champion, not cook unless you can win Michelin stars, etc. Why is it different with writing? I'm not criticising by any means, I'm just curious.

I can see one justification: when you're presenting information, anyone looking at it can find all the other sources relatively easily, including any that might be better. It's like knowing that, every time you get out your tennis racket, you will be playing on a packed Wimbledon centre court against Roger Federer.

Fair question, Bomba.

I think the difference is that I want to write for an audience, while I play sport just for me. Reading it back, it sounds more than a little arrogant, which it wasn't intended to be. Let me redefine that slightly as saying that I want to write for the guide on a topic in a way that fills a gap, not one which duplicates existing provision or information elsewhere.

The frustrating thing is the relatively low google search ratings that edited entries seem to have....

Hmmm, yes, I see what you mean.

That's why I try to write entries about subjects where the information is freely available, but not in English. Or merely not on the internet.

(Though the one I'm researching right now requires attempting to read French, which is giving me a headache, since it's been a while. )

"Having said that, I'd love to have the motivation to finish my entry on Machiavelli, but I still don't have much confidence that it won't just sink to the bottom like the Rawls entry did."

That's a fair concern, Otto, but bear in mind there are fewer entries in PR nowadays (only a page or two of which are actively being worked on) so you'll probably find it will get looked at more. I, for one, would love to read an entry on Machiavelli.

I agree entirely that there's no point in reading the material already on the internet, and then re-phrasing it. I think most of the ones I've written have been partly by using the internet, books and personal experience. I'd like to add to the knowledge there rather than shuffling it round to different places, if possible.

One of my entries that I like best seems to be about the only original piece of work on the internet about that subject. By "original" I don't mean I made it up off the top of my head, but that it's the only thing I can find online on the subject which isn't a cut and paste job from the circle of sites all saying the same thing in the same words. So I do know what you mean.

I personally do not think Peer Review is too critical , I just feel that the standards are above what I could achieve without a huge amount of effort and I have done with education many years ago. I am old and tired and just here to keep myself amused sometimes.

Reading the arguments between people who do think Peer Review is too critical and whoever is left of the Peer Review police these days makes interesting conversations though. When all sorts of dross gets put into PR that is a problem, when nothing gets put there that is a problem, it is a regular little soap opera. And it usually makes the Top 20 conversations which hardly any of the Peer Review threads do.

I also think it is sad that h2g2 has conversations everywhere on all sorts of topics but that these are not findable from the entries. If someone searches and finds an edited entry it then looks as though no one is talking about this entry (because no one is), but elsewhere on h2g2 there will be conversations that may even be about the entry topics but which then disappear into the backlog of the likes of askh2g2.

This is my own example. I had a question on Light Bulbs. Had I posted this on the Light Bulbs entry I would have been ignored, I am long enough in the h2g2 tooth to know this sort of thing. So my question gets a reply at Askh2g2 but that information is lost to anyone else wondering a similar question and looking on the edited entry.

"Tear down this wall!"


Must say this thread is one of the most honest and forthright
I've ever seen here.

People are revealing their most inner personal thoughts and
feelings about the nature of writing and communicating as well
as speculating on the 'purpose' or meaning of internet life.

And I'm seeing lots of old names I haven't seen for a long time.

Many are veterans of the old AggGagCac wars.
I was tempted to link some of them with their contributions
but will opt instead for a simple link to U187783 for those
who wish to venture down memory lane. There's an archive page
there which lists all the contributors by name.

Many newer researchers may find some of this history interesting
especially the famous loonytunes entry that started the whole
debate about 'guidelines' - A504217

Yes this discussion (argument?) has been going on for years,
but this thread really does show how far we've come in thinking
about it. I'm feeling quite proud of you all!

Up the evolution!

peace
~jwf~

The Index:
A616196

I used to contribute both to the EG and to PR quite a lot, and I loved doing it, both the reviewing and writing, but time has moved on, and during that time the Web has developed quite a lot. Wikipedia was probably the biggest killer.

For me, I think audience has something to do with it. Not everything, but something. When I write an entry on my Wordpress blog, I can see immediately how many people are coming to the site and who is looking at what. It's a pity H2G2 doesn't give us the same level of access, as often it seems that you are writing something that few enough people look at. I'm not saying that anything that I have written on my blog gets huge numbers or anything, just that there is a greater sense of interactivity involved, even if most readers are not commenting. Speaking for myself, I can write one entry without much feedback, and maybe I can even write 10 entries. But 30, 40, 100? No. Eventually I will get bored by it all.

What, specifically, is it that bothers you, then?

That people can't find it via google?

That there are few comments?

That there's no pageview counter?

For me, I'm not terribly bothered - I'm happy with the work that I did, it was a lot of fun and it really helped me to expand what I knew, and to do some proper research on stuff I was interested in, but eventually I felt it was time to move on.

For people new to H2G2, it would be good I think if the Edited Guide was more amenable to the newest generation of internet users, Web 2.0 or whatever it's called. Compatibility with OpenID, RSS, a more distinctive brand, photo and video facilitated via YouTube and Flickr and a relaxation of editorial policies to something more Wiki friendly maybe.

Check out this place - this is the kind of thing that I would be more interested in nowadays. There are a lot of crossovers with H2G2, but fewer constraints I think.

http://atlasobscura.com/

"That people can't find it?"

"That there are few comments?"

These aren't unreasonable issues to have. I had a drawer crammed full of things I'd written that I didn't want people to see for whatever reason. However, when I wrote something for h2g2, it was because I wanted someone to see what I had to say.

I know they're not unreasonable - that's why I mentioned them. It's something we can't do much about without the BBC's help...

Well, findability and comments are two of the reasons I blog and I don't write on h2g2 any more.

I think we need to take comments like Ben's and put them on this week's talking point:

"Do have a blog? If so, what's it about? What made you start a blog?"
- findability and comments.