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

Dear Whoami?©, thanks for all the cake but I am sorry to see you leap to the defence of the indefensible, after (presumably) reading my gripes in detail.

Occasions "where the meaning is lost or where factual inaccuracies are introduced" are precisely what I complain of. Scrambled meanings and factual inaccuracies introduced by subs have generally been corrected after I have pointed them out; but why is it up to me to sub-edit the sub-editors' work? (Because they are 17-year-old students? That's fine, it's good that they volunteer for the job, good luck to them. Tiresome for me, though.)

On the other hand grammatical errors introduced by subs have in some cases been left uncorrected despite my pointing out. Stylistic matters have been ridden over roughshod, in ways that would make Douglas Adams blow his lid. Gnomon is right, I don't feel impelled to submit much more, beyond small things like A973343 "How to be infallible".

I dread A963579 "Ludwig Wittgenstein" finding its way into the hands of some teenage Jedi. Help me Obi-Wan Kenobi you're my only hope.

*wanders back in after unsubscribing*

Blimey, is this thread still active?

Recumbentman, I can only suggest that if you do not want a single nuance of your work changed, then you write for Wikipedia or other such disreputable collection. If you were researching for any major journal or newspaper, your work would be subject to an editorial process to ensure that it measures up to a prescribed style. The same goes here, the only difference being that none of us are paid.

I resent the implication that I and other Subs are 'teenage Jedis'. The Towers do not pick their volunteers out of a hat, and all our Subs are highly literate. We are there because we notice not only punctuation and formatting errors, but also those in grammar and syntax. Regretfully, the latter _does_ occur in some of your work, and it was merely my intention to convert the passages in question to legible, coherent English without losing meaning or tone.

B

It shouldn't surprise you to know that I'm now going to proceed to break your posting into little bitesize pieces - possibly with a demolition ball.

"Dear Whoami?©, thanks for all the cake but I am sorry to see you leap to the defence of the indefensible, after (presumably) reading my gripes in detail."

The Editorial Process isn't indefensible. It works pretty well, on the whole.

"Occasions "where the meaning is lost or where factual inaccuracies are introduced" are precisely what I complain of. Scrambled meanings and factual inaccuracies introduced by subs have generally been corrected after I have pointed them out; but why is it up to me to sub-edit the sub-editors' work?"

It's not! We should get things right, but we're only human and so occasionally things will slip through the net. They're generally picked up by the Editors, or by other Researchers, or by the Author. Most polite authors don't find this so tedious...

"(Because they are 17-year-old students? That's fine, it's good that they volunteer for the job, good luck to them. Tiresome for me, though.)"

Now you're getting personal. My age and occupation have until now *never*, and I mean *never*, been used against me on h2g2. You're being plainly offensive and unnecessary and I refuse to sink to the low level that you have. How dare you insult me on basis of my age? Why on earth don't you think about what you write before you press 'submit'? Maybe you ought to consider using the preview button and reading your postings back to yourself. Either that, or you meant to be rude and insulting, in which case I should ask you to stop. Now. Have I made my opinions perfectly clear? I hope so.

"On the other hand grammatical errors introduced by subs have in some cases been left uncorrected despite my pointing out. Stylistic matters have been ridden over roughshod, in ways that would make Douglas Adams blow his lid."

Don't bring Douglas Adams into this. If you've pointed something out and it's valid, then it will be fixed - depending on whether you can be bothered to be polite and courteous. If no Editor has replied, chances are you posted somewhere they're not subscribed.

"Gnomon is right, I don't feel impelled to submit much more, beyond small things like A973343 "How to be infallible" ... I dread A963579 "Ludwig Wittgenstein" finding its way into the hands of some teenage Jedi..."

I have had few complaints regarding the quality of my subbing, and have dealt with any issues that have arisen in what I consider to be a professional manner. I came to this thread as sympathetic and engaged in some friendly discussion. However, you've resorted to generalisation and petty insult. I hope you can grow up a bit and be a bit more pleasant to other people.

BTW, I doubt I'll be picking anything you've written in the near future - I wouldn't wish that upon a Sub...

Whoami?
h2g2 Scout and Sub-editor

BTW, I'd be inclined to suggest that 'How to be infallible' does not, in its present state, constitute likely EG material on account of the fact that it is not your own original work.

Hi Master B! I've done a detailed comparison between Recumbentman's original and your sub-edited version. You did a good job! I think Recumbentman is over-sensitive.

It's on the Front Page today! Well done, Recumbentman. Well done, Master B.

Dear Recumbentman,

Across h2g2 and inhouse the Subs' efforts are *much* appreciated. We tell Researchers on site that their entries are probably going to change. Ordinarily, given the opportunity to comment on the edit, most people are happy with this.

The Edited Guide on is a collaborative project. A number of Researchers have made a contribution of one sort or another to entries: online friends looking over text before it goes into Peer Review; Scouts and Researchers giving suggestions and feedback in Peer Review; Sub-editors checking for grammar and spelling mistakes, making sure that it reads well for sense and fits in with house style. Even when the Entry is stamped official, people are still contributing to a piece - by commenting in the discussion forums on the Entry and by feeding back to us anything that hasn't been picked up on in Peer Review.

As such, h2g2 ends up being a collaborative experience and ownership of entries ends up being shared. We think that this is a good thing, especially as it means that anyone, of any age, or, indeed, any level of literacy can make a contribution to h2g2. (The Subs, though, are a specialised group who pride themselves on their high standards of English and are justifably sensitive about anyone challenging this.) In this way we're inclusive. Some people do find our Guidelines restrictive. We're currently addressing this and an outlet for those who are interested in more freeform writing is under development. See the various Underguide proposals for more information.

If you would like to see better the great work that Subs do, why not think about becoming one yourself?

Anna

I apologise if I have just been throwing a tantrum; this thing gets to me more than I expected it would. I honestly did'nt know I would feel so defensive of my little essay; but I do mean it (Rainbows End) seriously.

Whoami takes offence at my ageism, but if it was aimed at anyone it was at Master B who subbed my article, and several of whose misreadings (I think he will admit) had to be undone. I looked at his Space and estimated that he is in his early twenties. I got the 'teenage' bit from the Space of another Sub, I forget who. I haven't yet visited Whoami's Space, and have no idea of his/her age.

I am 55, and I count it a blessing that I was taught to parse in primary school, a thing my children missed out on, and it seems my grandchildren will too. (I feel the same about tonic sol-fa, without which staff notation is a jungle. Guide Entry coming on?)

You are right to jump to the defence of other young Subs, W, but I am sorry you personalise it, that is to say, react as though I referred to yourself, and respond with insults firing. Gnomon may be right to say that the differences between my version and the edited version are not worth fighting over, and again I apologise; they just got on me wick. It's Murphy's law number 5372: Editors will only tamper with your felicitous inventions, leaving your heinous lacunae unquestioned.

"I apologise if I have just been throwing a tantrum..."

That's OK. I'm sorry that I used your tantrum as anger management this morning after having been up since 4am working on essays.

"Whoami takes offence at my ageism ... I looked at [Master B]'s Space and estimated that he is in his early twenties. I got the 'teenage' bit from the Space of another Sub, I forget who. I haven't yet visited Whoami's Space, and have no idea of his/her age."

I'd be willing to bet money that it was my space that you looked at - I don't recall there being another 17-year-old student Sub Ed, at least not one that puts that info on their Space. However, I trust you now that it wasn't aimed at me personally and forgive you for what may well have been an unfortunate coincidence.

"I am 55, and I count it a blessing that I was taught to parse in primary school, a thing my children missed out on, and it seems my grandchildren will too. (I feel the same about tonic sol-fa, without which staff notation is a jungle. Guide Entry coming on?)"

Possibly even an Edited Guide Entry. I'd go for a non-biased title, though - something like 'A History of Education'. Probably more specific than that - or you could go right back to the beginning and work through - I think doing that might turn out really interesting!

"You are right to jump to the defence of other young Subs, W, but I am sorry you personalise it, that is to say, react as though I referred to yourself, and respond with insults firing."

I was very careful not to use any direct insults, but at the time I meant what I said. I hope you understand why now, but while I completely disagree with your opinions in post 41, I'm willing to accept that it was a momentary thing and that you're not really so nasty as that.

"It's Murphy's law number 5372: Editors will only tamper with your felicitous inventions, leaving your heinous lacunae unquestioned."

Possibly an exaggeration, but certainly amusing!

At the risk of hurting the servers with another mammoth post, I'd just like to add a few things:

1. Sorry, again.
2. It has been suggested that I leave this thread alone for now, but I have decided that since you pretty much apologised that won't be necessary. I think I can be more grown up than that.
3. Anna suggested you consider becoming a Sub - do give it some thought, won't you?

Whoami?

> "I can only suggest that if you do not want a single nuance of your work changed, then you write for Wikipedia"

On Wikipedia, anyone can edit any page, and our entry on rainbows has been edited 27 times. Still, the free advertising is nice...

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/rainbow

Well whaddaya know? Old threads never die. I met both Master B (hi!) and Whoami? at the June meetup in London and I had already forgotten that I had been so abrasive with them here. Excellent guys. Whoami? carried around a gallon of water to cool us all down on a scorching summer day.

Nice article in the Wiki, though I can't agree that rainbows are illusory. Never mind.

Wha'? Who's been digging this thread up again?

I'll tell you what, Recumbent, however terse we may have been with each other in the past is nothing compared to what the Community Artists are trying to do to each other right now.

B

Last time I saw a scrap like that in RL, casualty were *really* annoyed...

There's a fun trick some friends of mine recommend: search through some of your really old posts (works best with usenet and google groups). Have a read, and see if you recognise the person posting... and maybe, wouldn't it be nice to email someone and say:

"You know two years ago, when you said I was an arrogrant little brat, and I'd change my mind when I grew up? You know what, I *was* kind of arrogant, wasn't I? I've not changed my mind yet, but I do now see where you were coming from at least, so there's hope yet!".

Of course, *I* have never said anything I later regretted... A658433
-Lucinda

I get depressed when I read my old posts, because I knew all that stuff then which I don't know now.

Hi Recumbentman, and everyone else too!

I had quite forgotten our little argument. Was it because I'm a forgiving kind of person who doesn't bear a grudge, or because I'm a forgetful kind of person who can't remember who to hate?

Either way, I'm glad that this didn't turn into an ongoing feud. You're a great Researcher, and I hope your confidence in the EG is somewhat restored.

Seriously, though, it was great to meet you. If my memory serves me correctly, we discussed matters of Editorial Policy in a rather more civilised way in the park. No casualty involved. And thanks for mentioning the water. It was an extremely rare stroke of genius coming from me, even if I did almost spread it liberally across the platform at Didcot Parkway station on the way to London...

BTW, I'm no longer a 17-year-old student, either. That's right. I'm an 18-year-old one.

Whoami?

Marvellous thing, maturation.

"I get depressed when I read my old posts, because I knew all that stuff then which I don't know now."

But this is a good thing, Gnomon. It implies that h2g2 has educated you to an extent whereby you are doubting your previous confident knowledge. We are the ultimate anti-didactic approach, after all.

Apologies for the long words - I think this teacher training is getting to me.

B

Be careful or I'll paste in some of my Chem prep on Chirality...

Whoami?

Now that I visualise the scene, it was two gallons, wasn't it!