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

Next obvious question, which I'm not sure you'll be allowed/able to answer Jim... If the guide did get handed over/sold to someone else, would the transfer include the DNA software behind it, or just the database and users?

Given what DNA's actually capable of, it might actually be commercially worth someone's while to agree to keep the guide running if they were to get their hands on the software.

That sort of question is one the lawyers would have to answer. I'm utterly out of the loop on this one.

If it were down to me...

I'd hack out the core bits of DNA that h2g2 needs into a separate bit of software, then get the BBC to open-source that, along with releasing all the existing h2g2 data under a suitable Creative Commons license.

The new redesign, if it remained, would have to be refactored, as that relies on the BBC's templating architecture, but to be honest, I'd redo all the skins in something new (and because it's me, that would probably be ASP MVC 3).

We'd need our own user registration system (perhaps something based on OpenID, perhaps not) to replace BBC ID.

After that, it just needs enough server horsepower to keep the site running.

Then you just need to worry about paying for server repairs, bandwidth, scaling (if you're lucky). And let the newly autonomous community take the guide in new and more wonderful directions.

Please note: All this is my personal speculation, and I'm not speaking in any official capacity.

Blimey though that does sound like the kinda of thing in which we *could* potentially raise the money.

Guess it depends a lot on how the BBC feel about the IP, I rather suspect that due to some of the byzantine ways the higher echelons of the Beeb work it could be tricky.

Yet another reason to curse the existance of the Murdoch clan... curse them all.

FB

The BBC has open-sourced several things in the past - the Glow javascript library was fairly high-profile. The biggest impediment is usually that they don't necessarily want to have to maintain an OS project with external contributions. This would be a simpler proposition - a fork of the code which the BBC wouldn't have to maintain.

Not that you'd *have* to do it this way. You could write your own back-end or adapt another one to host the kind of data and features h2g2 has. Hard to tell whether either of these would be more or less work. I'm only going by what I'd do if it were my project.

Jim.. so grateful for your working keeping h2g2.com going.

I've made a vain attempt at starting a community consortium - so far I have an h2g2 page, an e mail address, and lots of good will.


Would you be able to help us?



http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/A80173361

Our e mail is [email protected] ..

"Wiki beats it for being an encyclopaedia..."

Surely Wiki is The Encyclopedia Galactica?
The beauty of h2g2 was the informality and humour, and the ability to include entries that people enjoy, but wouldn't be considered serious enough for Wiki... I kindof see h2g2 as a cross between Wikipedia and Facebook - just years before either.

Keeping to the analogy then - am focusing on the large friendly instructions on the cover.... there must be a way!

was? Less of the past tense my man..

Interesting. I'm talking to a few people, and have started asking some of the inevitable questions.

Jim: interesting comments about lawyers and intellectual property, and the site's innards. The provision of a new backend would be *most* legally straightforward, but I don't pretend that it would be legally straightforward.

A new back-end might be the most straightforward for the beeb, but as to making the takeover of the site interesting to a third party - throwing in the DNA software would be _far_ more interesting.

I can't see _any_ existing third party being interested in re-building an entire back-end system to meet the requirements of an existing database...

My guess is we'd be lucky if we could get someone to put the whole thing out on a ropey old wiki.

If the entries stay the property of H2G2 then they could have a market value to a large number of people and organisations.

<>

Talking of wikis, there is an excellent site that might be a good option if members are going to take over the running of H2G2. http://www.wikidot.com/. Wkidot offers members the opportunity to set up their own website in a wiki style if they choose, along with a forum and blog. Each site can have its own look by applying a CSS and there are plenty of other features that can be added.

Wikidot also allows unlimited pages and bandwidth, with costs starting at around $50.00. For more successful sites, prices need to be negotiated however.

I believe existing websites can also be cloned to Wikidot too. Worth taking a look at perhaps.

Just how much do we need to find to run the site I have just had a quick gustimate at the possabilites, there are about 60% in the edited guide that have potential.

At £50 for the rights to use an entry under licence per annum the site could raise between £30,000 and £50,000 revinue so on the face of it this could work. But it is going to be hard work. But I will help as I am sure others will.

"All this is my personal speculation, and I'm not speaking in any official capacity."

Jim, (nice to "see" you, btw, if a shame about the circumstances...) are you in a position to find out for us just how big the DNA database is at the moment and what bandwidth h2g2 used in, say, the past three months? This info would go a long way towards us being able to make realistic plans.

I don't yet know how much I'd be allowed to tell you. But I'm hoping to see Nick Newman tomorrow to talk about h2g2, and I'll find out from him what I can or can't say. Some information might be sensitive depending on how the BBC want to proceed, I just don't know.

Oops. Apologies, that should be Nick Reynolds. Nick Newman is someone completely different. I *knew* the name looked wrong when I typed it, but clearly had a brain spasm.

@The 9th Chevron: "The beauty of h2g2 was the informality and humour, and the ability to include entries that people enjoy, but wouldn&#39;t be considered serious enough for Wiki... I kindof see h2g2 as a cross between Wikipedia and Facebook - just years before either."

I wasn&#39;t thinking merely in terms of content but also in terms of underlying architecture and scalability. One of the frustrations I always had when writing for and editing the guide in the early days (I was one of the original &#39;editors&#39; for the site during Mark Moxon&#39;s reign—I&#39;m &#39;Craig Grannell&#39;, who writes Revert to Saved, linked to a few pages back) was the need to hard-link everything. Dealing with the structure was also hugely time-consuming for PTBs, although maybe that&#39;s changed. (I&#39;ve not really used the site much in years.)

One thing that is clear: unless a rich benefactor appears, h2g2 users will need to understand the realities of a site surviving in the brutal modern internet age. There needs to be some kind of commercial underpinning of the site, whether that&#39;s subscriptions or advertising. (Donations are all lovely, but, take it from me, if you try to have a site survive purely on goodwill via donations, it&#39;s dead in the water unless it&#39;s a Wikipedia-style giant.) Note that advertising doesn&#39;t necessarily mean horrid Flash banners jumping all over the page—advertising can be intelligent and unobtrusive.

I do hope something can be worked out, though, because it&#39;s clear there&#39;s a place for this site, and my wife also loves the place. It&#39;s also DNA&#39;s legacy, and having that disappear for good would be horribly depressing.

The advertising could be a set format. I'm in advertising, and the customers will go along with whatever format is set by the site. If it's stipulated that the advertising is going to be static ads, they wouldn't be so horrid.

However, I also know the advertisers think "The more moving the better!" and it's difficult to convince them that most people will just refresh their page rather than stare at your horrid assault on the eyes!