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

I have to respectfully disagree with the augument of your introduction. You say that the Guide does not contain information that cannot be "better captured" elsewhere, I beg to differ:

A996933 - How to Buy a Guitar
A593714 - How to Fail as a Pop Group
A729876 - Dwarf Throwing
A533981 - Dripping Taps

And this is just the edited guide, which I believe retains DNA's original wit and humor, and is maintained by people who were practically created in his image. As for the information contained in the guide being overly personal or wildly inaccurate, I imagine that it's been a while since you've read any of Douglas Adams' books.



nr.

Hello NR! I've seen you in the threads, and I believe I enjoyed a visit to your personal page. (I'll make certain that I correct the lapse, if I find that I have not been there).

Those are excellent entries, all; but, they are also much the kind of thing that I, or some close acquaintance, could have written just as readily, the sort of thing that someone might respond to with 'Oh yes, I could have told you that'. Which is exactly my point. (You want proof? Read my 'pending' entry on stage props, or my currently-being-edited entry on 'Wilderness Survival on Earth'. Not a lot of really surprising stuff there, except for examples which come from personal experiences.)

My problem is not with the site, per se, or even the choices of what subjects are acceptable, but with the unnecessarily humourless restrictions imposed on it (by those that I believe are called 'the italics'), with the conviction that DNA would have wanted it that way.

My personal disappointment, though (highly subjective and personal, I admit), is the forcing of entries into a more encyclopedic style, not the unusability of content. Even when the content is perfectly valid, it just isn't allowed that it read like a hgttg entry; which I may have mentioned that I sorely miss.

As it stands, even the enjoyment that I have experienced seems waning, as I come to the realization that far more creativity could be had by starting one's own site, without the heavy-handed oversite. Perhaps a web-ring is where I belong.

The one irreplaceable benefit from having become a researcher has been getting the chance to discuss things of interest with people like you. Fantastic way to get things clear in one's own mind.

Thanks for coming by to cheer me up. Consider it 'mission accomplished'.



PS: I have reread all hgttg, dirk, Last Chance, and Salmon books in the last six months. I have not, however, reread the Meaning of Liff, or More Meaning of Liff lately.

I see your point with the "oh,...", and I understand how a lack of humor would be bothersome. However, entries like A75683 should not be funny, and this is, as DNA put it, not the guide that Ford and Arthur used, but the earth edition, designed for real earthlings.

I think that the true value of the knowledge in this site comes from the fact that it is digested into a useable and acessible form. For example, I know zip nada about stage props, and if it weren't for your entry, I would never even bother to find out. The info is too scattered and clinical. Same goes for entries on serious issues like Diabetes. If people didn't have articles like A75683 and A314920, they would never go looking for that information, and if they did, they certainly wouldn't be able to compile it in such a concisely way. As a diabetic, I appreciate the authors of those articles and h2g2 for providing the forum for it.

Of course, that's the serious side, but DNA's vison *was* serious.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion, good luck on the guide entries, and I hope you find what you are looking for...



nr.

Thanks for sharing, NR. Your points are perfectly valid, of course. Some subjects cannot but suffer from generous amounts of humour. As our technology begins to allow us access to the internet from virtually anywhere on the planet, this site may yet prove to be as userful a tool as the HGTTG was to Ford and Arthur (sometimes a lot, and sometimes not at all).

It is digested, usable, and accessible information. One of my concerns about it becoming a 'standard depository' is the fact that we generally have no one to point a finger at should it also prove inaccurate or dangerously inaccurate. The BBC keeps a form of 'intellectual rights' to the entries, but eschews any responsibility for inaccuracies (very much like HGTTG, really).

I am curious as to whether you would actually come here, though, if your intent was to learn about diabetes (just for example); or, would you be more likely to trust the info from, say, WebMD's web site? I'm just curious; bad information about this problem could prove fatal in a conceivable set of circumstances.

As an example of lesser concern, I have had a lively discussion with the author of A1095996 - Inertia Equals Gravity.
I don't know if any of the text of the article has been changed as a result, but it unequivocolly stated that gravity and inertia are the SAME FORCE. Oh, and centrifugal force, too.

And, while he may be accurately quoting some author's hypothesis, it was not made clear that the notion is hypothetical in nature. It was presented as a statement of accepted physics fact, as if he were stating that the Earth has one sun. Quoted as fact, this could cause some poor elementary school student a grade.

"Of course, that's the serious side, but DNA's vison *was* serious."
You are absolutely right about this, I am certain. DNA did write that he had 'gone off' humour. I don't know if it was just burnout, or becoming jaded by the way we have treated endangered species, or the risk that our cutting and burning of rainforests is subjecting us to; but he had reversed himself enough to begin writing 'Salmon of Doubt', a fact which gives me hope that humour was back in his good graces.

Perhaps, like many who gain a bit of fame, when designing the 'Earth Guide' concept he began taking himself uncharacteristically seriously, and was just, toward the end, becoming aware of what he'd lose if this were to continue. Perhaps not. Perhaps I'm just becoming a surly, old curmudgeon; but humour has always been important to me. Humour in writing, performance, music, and even in math, keeps me going when nothing else does.

We may not be able to afford a 'sense of perspective' if we are to survive in the universe, but it would be a whole lot harder for me without a sense of humour.

Thanks for the good wishes. You, at least, are happy with what has been offered, and that is great. Best wishes.