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

P.S. Regarding the aforementioned "God" entry....

I have met up with the author on several forums. At turns funny, witty, clever, and capable of seeing things from a "fresh" perspective, this researcher also sometimes goes out of his/her way to be controversial and even confrontational. I read this entry (admittedly quickly) and think perhaps the researcher is trying to be one or the other. And of course an official Guide Entry is meant to be at least somewhat unbiased.

There are entries on God and religions which HAVE been accepted as "official" entries. I believe our mentor, DNA himself, posted a response to one of them. So evidence would indicate that hidden bias may not be the reason the entry was rejected.

Just one woman's opinion.

Okay I've re-edited the entry, quite drastically. Would one of the Scouts like to take a look at it and see if it looks okay now?

Gets my vote - and as the one who spotted the similarities with the other site can I firstly apologise as most of the previous version was either new or sufficient different to count as research, it was just those few lines that were exactly the the same that caused the problems.

Secondly, it is good to see that you weren't put off and have come back with a stronger article and I hope you continue - one thing I am thying to promote is that where other sites have been used for genuine research that they are listed in the initial article so that us Scouts and the sub-eds and the PTB can seeyou have nothing to hide.

What is next on your list ?- I seem to detect a slight theme about the articles submited or already edited.

C Hawke - Scout

I agree that it does seem slightly improved with this version.

OK dudes r u ready 4 another legal challenge?

My latest is on Internet Porn

http://www.h2g2.com/A470008

I thought I'd fly it here as well as on the Peer Review page.

Kadu

bookmark!

Hi Fragilis,

The God entry must be held to a high standard - just look at what we're trying to define: something that we can't see; that some people claim to feel and converse with, but others do not; that may or may not have created the universe; that some say (rightly) has been the cause of terrible acts of war and human rights abuses, that others say (rightly) is a benign, good force that is a comfort for humanity and is a positive guiding influence on our morality.

The trouble with the God entry as it stands is that it doesn't represent those that do believe in God - it represents some of the feelings of those who don't believe in God. And that's fine, but it doesn't go any way to defining God for those millions who go to church, say a quick prayer because they feel like it, have dedicated their lives to a religious order, or have faith in *something* but they're not sure what.

The entry evokes controversy because it takes what appears to be an Atheist's perspective. It is one sided. The trouble is that a number of Researchers *have* balked at some of the statements in the God entry - even before we've put it on the front page. Here in the editorial office, we periodically look at and talk about the God entry, and in our latest effort to get something in the Guide that is balanced on God, we've decided that we're going to make God a topic of the week so that the Community can create a collaborative entry on the subject - it's going up on 29 November. We really hope that the creative process behind this will be as balanced and as intelligent as some of the discussion on the subject thus far. I suspect we will be including some of the content of the existing God entry, because there are some incredibly valid points in there and, it cannot be denied, it is well written, it's just that there are elements in there that need clarification.

As for editing and rewriting the piece so that it is not controversial, my sympathies, I tried too. It's a monumental task. To his credit, Looneytunes has subbed the entry, and has done a remarkable job of it. His version can be found at http://www.h2g2.com/A429923.

I'm sure that the debate will continue, it's a thorny issue after all... but thanks for your input - we are listening and we're really hoping, just as you are, that there will be some progress!

Anna,

Thanks for the thoughtful response. The entry does take an atheist's perspective, as the author is an atheist. If the author were Christian or Buddhist or agnostic, the entry would undoubtedly take that perspective instead. And indeed, you must wonder whether there is any single perspective that wouldn't cause some people at h2g2 to balk at the results.

If we are all going to discuss the issue endlessly, perhaps it would be best to treat the topic as a collaborative effort from the get-go. I think the idea is an admirable one. I look forward to the collaborative entry discussion, and I applaud h2g2 for its willingness to seek a fair resolution. I just hope we can all remain amicable on November 29th.

See you there!

Anna

I'm pleased you like the alterations Fragalis. Thanks..

So, C Hawke, it was you was it....

Only joking, I quite understand, it was fine... I *had* read lots of other sites on the subject, I just found it really difficult to say something politely using a limited *nice* vocabulary, without sounding pretty similar to many of the pieces I read.. It's a bit like giving someone instructions on how to mount a horse, without using the words stirrup and saddle.

Anyway, now that it's edited again will you or one of your fellow Scouts please recommend it as an edited entry again, please? Or can you tell the other Scouts to take another look at it? I think it's okay now really, I've re-edited it very carefully...

What's next on my list? Well, my boyfriend and co-writer, dom, suggested that we write a piece on 'The Art of Cuddling', which I think is a lovely subject, and it contrasts nicely with the other entries. So I suspect that that will be it...

I *think* it remains reconmended pending the re-jig, Anna can you confirm this? I would reconmend it but my pick is this week and I think all my choses are used (1 is still waiting an answer on suitability)

I know what you mean about the difficulties, my article on "This Life - The TV show" includes a paragraph of press quotes almost totally lifeted from one of the referenced sites - how can I re-word a pargraph of quotes.

I like the idea of the cuddles entry.

C hawke

HELP My entry on Internet Porn refered 2 above and placed on the PRP has atracted the hoped 4 attention of a scout but 1 who wants to impose the censorship talked about here. The thread is here http://www.h2g2.com/F48874?thread=87532&post=731863 Can someone from H2G2 towers make a judgement on if this entry is suitable or not, and can any other scouts have a look at it please, with the exception of the scouts comments everyone else has been in favour. Thanks Kadu Flyer

I don't know what all the fuss is about!

So the famous shipping line (Cunard) and the national airline of Ireland (Aer Lingus) have merged!

Big Deal!

You wouldn't say that if you'd tried it!

By the way, if there are any Scouts out there wondering if this entry is now pickable again, yes it is.

So if you want to, pick it.

(I just realised I didn't move the thread from the entry back to Peer Review once the entry had been re-written to avoid the problems it had. It's now been re-done, it's back in Peer Review, and it's available for choosing.

See earlier posting 51 onwards for an explanation of what happened.)

So how does that work then?

Do you all sit around watching and giving marks out of ten?

I can see it now.....

"I thought the lad done well around the box"
"His penetration was good but he had no width"
"He seemd to struggle down the left but attacked well down the middle"

etc
etc

Won by a lap?

Editorial Note: This thread has been moved out of the Peer Review forum because this entry has now been recommended for the Edited Guide.

If they haven't been along already, the Scout who recommended your entry will post here soon, to let you know what happens next. Meanwhile you can find out what will happen to your entry here: http://www.h2g2.com/SubEditors-Process

Congratulations!

He fumbled in midfield?
Her defences were in tatters?
A bold attempt for an early touchdown, but frustrated by the withdrawal of the endzone?
Now on the third down, and he's advanced several inches?
That was a good firm tackle?