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

hi anhaga

This is an excellent point that you make here:

>>>What is the selling point of hootoo to anyone outside Britain (or inside, if you like) who isn't familiar with the works of Douglas Adams?<<

To which at this moment in time (2.00 am GMT here) that I have no answer for. I shall ponder it, and take it further.

Questions such as this are in need of serious consideration, thanks for raising them.

I think we should be thanking Effers -- she's the one that's been raising this sort of question more than I have.

I know it's been asked in some form somewhere but I'll just consider a "what brought you to hootoo?" sort of question:



What brought you to hootoo rather than Facebook?

Facebook didn't exist and Douglas Adams did.

What brought you to hootoo rather than Twitter?

Twitter didn't exist and Douglas Adams did.

What brought you to hootoo rather than Wikipedia?

Wikipedia didn't exist and Douglas Adams did.



and


Where do you go to get information about what's going on around town where you live?

Yelp.

Not hootoo?

Where I live there are twice as many active hootoo Researchers than in any other Canadian city. Two of us. Almost everybody with a smartphone in the city contributes something to YelpEdmonton. (For what it's worth, I've contributed far more about Edmonton and what goes on here to hootoo than I have to Yelp [and, at least one of my Edited Entries has been lifted by Wikipedia].) I can't imagine The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Edmonton Edition ever amounting to more than a blip compared to Yelp (no matter how hard Jaz'd and I work), and Yelp is small potatoes.


Personally, I think that anyone who has the dream of making hootoo global in any meaningful sense has to seriously face the fact that h2g2 has to take on the big boys on turf they very clearly own. I don't see how that can be done by word of mouth.

I wouldn't advice anyone to contribute to the Guide as it is now organised.

I sent some very precious drawings from my Final year project for my biology degree. They are now obviously old and not *perfect* I did them as a 20 year old into a home made folder that my Dad's secretary did her best to put together.

They are slightly strange because I had stuck the complex annoations that are the norm for biological drawings on top of the sheets...slightly wrinkled, most likely from the glue used in those days...and faded.

*All* my friends without exception love them and say how quirky and interesting they are.

To me they go perfectly with the quirky text I wrote about my adventure in a Pyrenean stream with some obscure species of caddisfly larvae, which as I wrote in the entry, even the Natural History Museum in London couldn't identify...a French expert had to identitfy...the Museum asked for a few I had in formalin for their collection.

It is abundantly clear that this is a story from the past.


If someone wrote about that and sent off some wonderful old strange drawings...plus some that were perfectly normal from a Scientific paper published, I'd bite their hand off WITH JOY FOR SUCH A THING for a thing like the h2g2 guide.

What did I get? Some miserable thing about not being up to standard...and could I get rid of the wrinkles and staining?

Wonder what DNA would make of that?

What is h2g2?

I wouldn't advice anyone in their right or even wrong mind to join and contribute to the 'Guide' now.....whatever it is....I have no idea what it is...

I've been meaning to say, Effers, that I think you should find a good frame shop and have those drawings mounted and framed (archive materials) and either hang them in a special place in your home or, if you can bear to part with the originals, shop them around to galleries. I haven't even seen the things and I'm almost certain I would pay a pretty penny to have one or two of them.

Sorry to continue off topic, if this is off topic.

>> Sorry to continue off topic, if this is off topic. <<

Seems like we're just getting to the crux of the matter.

Artistic differences have arisen between Mother Effers
and those who currently organise the Edited Guide.

Without discussing the relative merits of two sets of artistic
sensibility (she likes/they prefer) I think we can boil this down
to a long standing h2g2 issue, that of creative control.
Management versus membership.

History lesson.
Feel free to skip to 2nd last paragraph.
Way back in the old days a wonderful piece called The
Twenty-Seventh Letter was submitted by Looney-Tunes (a
brilliantly funny writer and antipodean curmudgeon).

It was a masterpiece of wit and irony, a complete parody
of a style used by overly-academic theses writers, in which
was presented a very legitimate case for the existence of
an otherwise forgotten letter in our alphabet.

It was brilliant. But in Peer Review it fooled most of the
editors and rveiewers. Many were quite seriously disturbed
that they could neither verify or disprove the theory. When
it was finally admitted that it was not to be taken seriously
it was summarily drummed out of Peer Review for being
(ahem) 'not true', 'inaccurate', and 'a complete fiction'.

It didn't matter that it was a brilliant essay of a caliper of
writing worthy of inclusion in any Guide to the Galaxy; all
that mattered was the Policy of No Fiction in the Guide. That
struggle cost us a lot of early researchers who could not
be part of what they saw as a short-sighted policing being
forced upon the best and brightest in the community with no
provision for any alternative from Fundamentalist Dogma.

Sadly, DNA himself was no longer with us to inform the situation.

It became a great schism as harmful to the cause as the struggle
for succession in Islam. Or, that episode of Star Trek with the
two half-white/half-black faces arguing their righteousness and
superiority. Lines were drawn.

There followed a long struggle by AGG/GAG/CAC and later, the
Underguide Folks, to win for Fiction and Creativity some clear
recognition and perhaps even a place of honour in a site based
on ideas from a Great Work of Fiction, that famous Trilogy in 5
parts that defines our planet as Mostly Harmless.

</>

Two facts are clear.
A website, like any complex organisation requires management and
direction and a commitment to a mission statement or purpose. But
as we saw so many times during the Great Vogon Detour thru Beebland
it should remain true to its supporters and members as well. It means
having some flexibility, a willingness to accept and embrace a variety
of communication styles. To see the Universe as it is and not try to
impose any pre-set vision or framework upon it.

As anhaga said, some of us would love to see Effers' artwork.
(The imposition of illustrations on Edited Entries in spite of any
objections raised by the original authours has been another
long standing but not widely discussed issue.)
Whether we like Effers' pics or not, they are part of her work, her
contribution to the Guide. They should not be disallowed just
because they are not of current tastes or standards. No more
than the likes of LoonyTunes should have been chased off for
being inspired by h2g2 to write imaginative fiction.


~jwf~

Some of the illustrations attached to my edited entries were frankly embarrassing.

I think, if I may nutshell my New Scottish compatriot, the question is, "What do we want?" And, perhaps to a lesser degree, "do we want it now?!"

Is it hootoo?

Or is it global phenomenon HOOTOO?

#21 Lanzababy " hi anhaga, This is an excellent point that you make here ..."

This was the type of question I was thinking of asking between a month / two months ago on another thread, but at the time it was mentioned by those that were working very hard behind the scenes, that now (then) wasn't a good time to be raising all those questions. There was associated with that talk a lot of apparent negativity that was beginning to dispirit those working behind the scenes to get this place properly up and running (debugging and reconnecting broken links etc etc). It was mentioned at this time that there were millions of hits to the edited guide indicating a future of promise.

Even I have taken the hint that the volunteers need time and space to get themselves sorted


I thought the numbers of readers were a good indication of success in the outide world

In terms of promotion I think that all the site can cope with at the moment is the sort of organic growth that people are discussing, promotional stuff comes later, when we are ready

*Decides to return to the thread and just ignore the negativity.*

I think where a lot of people go wrong is by unfavourably comparing this place to sites it pre-dates, doesn't resemble and isn't trying to compete with. It's not Farcebook, Twitter or Wonkipedia. So much so that saying it's useless to say it is.

The second place a lot of people go wrong is by insisting on mentioning DNA... now, yes, DNA founded the place and wrote some books about a wholly remarkable book from which the name of this site is derived. But it's not a fan site, for either DNA or Hitchhiker's Guide...

I tell people *even people who are familiar with all that stuff* simply that it's the online Guide to Life, the Universe and Everything supported by a wonderful community and where good writing is held in high regard. There are a lot of people out there who refuse to join because they erroneously think it's a poor man's Farcebook and Wonkipedia nailed on to a DNA fansite (paraphrased from actual people I know), so can you see why promoting it like that isn't going to help. If they *ask* about how it compares to Wonkipedia, tell them by all means... but do so in absolutely glowing terms. Big up Peer Review and how good writing is more important than simply cramming in ALL THE FACTS. Tell them that it cannot be randomly mess about with afterwards, not by bored teenagers nor PR firms (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16084861 ).

And anhaga, have you considered promoting h2g2 on this Yelp site? There's no harm in asking, the worst they can do is say "no".

Just a quick question, out of interest.

We've had a few posts going "I wouldn't recommend h2g2 because..."

Can anyone who's got a reason TO recommend h2g2 just let us know? There's no good listing weaknesses if you're not listing benefits too, otherwise we get a very skewed impression.

Here are some positive things about h2g2...

The community. Smart, informed, helpful, civilised. A great resource to ask questions, to discuss, and debate. People are very helpful, and the culture is very civilised. People can disagree wildly on one thread, while having a perfectly civil conversation on another about something else. The level of politeness and general respect is higher here than anywhere else I know. People are informed without being elitist.

Facebook is generally only you and your friends. Twitter is limited to 140 characters, which is good for sharing links but nothing in any detail. It's not always a good place to ask questions unless you already have lots of followers, or get lucky with a hashtag.

The Guide is an opportunity to write about what you're interested in. Unlike wikipedia, where impersonal style rules and multiple authors, the Guide is an opportunity to write the best thing on the internet about your chosen topic, in your particular voice. (If we can fix the google search problem so people can find them, even better).

F19585?thread=8286112

Short-lived, but some good stuff.

>>Some of the illustrations attached to my edited entries were frankly embarrassing.



Might I suggest, if it would be possible to ask the opinion of the writer of an article, to see if they like/dislike any illustration submitted to enhance their article? Or even better to suggest a way in which their piece could be illustrated?

Post 25

"Whether we like Effers' pics or not, they are part of her work, her
contribution to the Guide. They should not be disallowed just
because they are not of current tastes or standards."

Actually, we don't know if that's why they were disallowed, do we?

Are the images unsuitable for the entry because the artists think they're just badly-drawn pictures (in which case, there are a few older blobs that haven't aged well), or because they're not the right picture quality?

If I took a picture of the Mona Lisa, in the dark, on a disposable camera with no flash, then scanned that picture into using a late 90s scanner, the picture wouldn't be suitable for the guide.

That wouldn't be an insult to the Mona Lisa, the same way that a low quality scan of an old pencil sketch* not being of high enough PICTURE quality for the guide isn't an insult to Effers.

I don't know the specifics, and I don't know anything about the Community Artists' processes, other than that they appear to have high standards and the new smileys are superb.





*I know it's a pencil sketch from the PR thread, not because I'm some sort of internet voyeur.

Something to add to the H2G2 selling points that could be attractive to college/university students and wannabe science writers etc is the possibility of getting FEEDBACK on their written submissions. One cannot underestimate the value of feedback in the learning/development process.

The other thing I think H2G2 should / could take advantage of are the personal testimonies / diaries of experiences past and current members have had in life. There have even been one or two accounts of peoples experiences as they have grappled with what became terminal disease. It would be fitting for their memory that these accounts are not lost (will these journal accounts be lost in the transfer?)

Those are two very good points, Stone Art.

to h2g2

little letters *hic*

#25: jwf: "... History lesson.
... Way back in the old days a wonderful piece called The
Twenty-Seventh Letter was submitted by Looney-Tunes (a
brilliantly funny writer and antipodean curmudgeon).

... It was brilliant. But in Peer Review it fooled most of the
editors and rveiewers. Many were quite seriously disturbed
that they could neither verify or disprove the theory. When
it was finally admitted that it was not to be taken seriously
it was summarily drummed out of Peer Review for being
(ahem) 'not true', 'inaccurate', and 'a complete fiction'."



That's a real shame, it sounds pure Wittgensteinian. It could have been accommodated if there were say a section in the edited guide called alternate realities, or alternate vocabularies. However it seems almost certain to me that at some time or another during the evolution of the English alphabet there would have been letters that were forgotten / evolved out of existance.

That section does exist... it's called The UnderGuide, poor neglected little beasty it is.

The point is though that the Edited Guide is supposed to be for factual entries and however well written something might be it's a little unreasonable to Make Something Up and expect it to go in a *factual* Guide.