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

You told me to keep discussion in the PR thread about the entry, so here goes.

I find it annoying that you don't trust ZSF, or apparently the scouts in general as good peer reviewers. You said

"This is a PR thread to my first article – offered in good faith.
What ARE you on about
Your postings are descending into SPAM.
Please go away: read the article very carefully, read the PR guidelines, read the guidelines for ACEs and Scouts (since you carry those badges) and note you position in relation to Official Sub Editors (of which UnC13 H3avy0R (133t) (aNaRcy 4 eVa! D00D) is one)."

Zarquon's Singing Fish was talking about a sentence in your ENTRY, first of all. She was trying to be helpful. Second of all, your claim that her posts were spam is actually quite ironic, since you triple posted before.

ZSF is a trusted scout and ACE and more important a good one. All scouts have read the guidelines for PR entries, for the ACEs and the Scouts. Also, ZSF didn't violate a single one of the guidelines.

I have been told that Theology has a recent history on H2G2. (By a 'Lurker' fellow Christian on my course).
These other postings got very heated and personal, with a certain Scout 'in one corner'. Uncle Heavy, the Sub Editor, seams to know this, and referred to it on the article thread. All this file history seams to have bean deleted, so I can only go off the postings on the article's PR thread. Now, I think my treatment has been quite rough. What are posts 22, 23 and 24 about? They do not relate to the article I have posted.
The article thus far has incorporated all reasoned suggestions; even from an 'Atheist' - who was a lot bolder than I in declaring 'Theology' as Christian.
I have only got a problem with one Scout, not all of them! And only one if the Scout continues in the blunt and personal way. The same with anyone else.
The post you restate was to halt negative babble. I want PR that is constructive.
As stated on the thread, I will only answer constructive PR posts on that thread from now on.
I think that is ok.

What are you talking about? Posts 22, 23 and 24 were about the entry!

Your treatment hasn't been rough. It's been rather fluffy actually. And no threads are deleted unless hidden my moderation

Hi Towel Surfer, and Jodan (nice to see you again )

I'd like to comment on the goings on in the Christian Theology Peer Review thread. Jodan beat me to it, so I'm going to borrow some of his limelight for a while, and post here.

Sub-editors have no authority in Peer Review. A Sub-editor's job is to edit entries, once they're submitted *by a Scout* to the Editors. Therefore, the only people with any "authority" here are the Scouts. This case, cumulating in post 29 to the PR thread, is one of many cases when people misinterpret the importance of the volunteers onsite. Being a Sub-editor does not elevate one's opinion above everyone else's.

I don't hang out in review forums much, so forgive me if I say this the wrong way, but I think that this entry could be improved a lot. I'm nowhere near an expert in the subject, but this entry has a feeling of incompleteness to it. Your entry is great, but with other peoples' help, we could make it even better.

Peer Review is all about cooperation, and working towards a common goal. Most of the people on here are trying to help you to get to that goal with them. I think I speak for everyone when I say that throwing titles around doesn't help anyone, but looking at the post instead of the poster could help. We're all guilty of forgetting that, to some degree or other.

I'm sorry that your experience on PR is turning more and more sour by the minute, and I'd be happy to do anything that I can to get things back on track for all of us. Various people have posted aggressive comments. I'm not being hostile, but you were one of them. As Rains suggested, it would be a good idea if everyone tries to get on with everyone else, and then we'll see what we can accomplish, together

Will

Hi.

Brilliant! The sub editors did used to have the authority in accepting entries though. Plus many sub editors hang around the review forums. Don't minimize the sub editors... I almost became one (I'm far to important )

<>


btw, I'm not an 'Atheist' - I'm an atheist.

regards

To Will (h2g2 sub-editor),

I except that I posted in an increasingly personal manner, but I feel that I was reacting to the nature of the other postings, which from the outset came over as sarcastic and flippant from the start.

This subject was initiated by a colleague under the heading ‘Theology’.
The PR got very heated and personal (with the Scout and Sub Editor participating). This first draft as it such ended in my colleague feeling he was loosing editorial control of his own work, so he deleted everything he could! He wants no further part in H2G2.

My college had never come across an ‘Atheist’ Theologian before, although he admitted the theoretical possibility – as an adversary. This is because of his Black Pentecostal/Muslim convert background (Now ‘Traditional’ Anglican) – and the nature of his Theological education, which was academic, but in a very much a believing atmosphere – equipping the troops with the academic weapons!

Because he started the PR by letting the article stand up for itself (from his telling), he saw the posting of a Scout telling her personal story, together with the Sub Editor being an Atheist as being a direct personal attack.

This is why I cannot find the original on-line, or the thread. I had a copy to start my draft, however.

At this point the article title was changed to Christian Theology: the academic subject.
Why? Because filtering out the ‘rants’, it was proven that postings from those who are not Christians would be very hostile to Christianity ‘owning’ the subject Theology. The is a big compromise to the style of the H2G2, and technically incorrect, but if it helps to get the subject in then, ok.

Note: All courses at undergraduate level in the UK use Theology for courses from a Christian ‘view’ and/or mainly about Christianity with others studied as a contrast. (Admittedly) using the internet, I found no courses, anywhere, that use Theology as a single word to describe other than ‘Christian’ studies. All the courses claim to be ‘academic’ as is the nature of the subject.

Scout PR of the ‘technical’ bits of article appears to rely greatly upon OED definitions - used divisively and misleadingly – or even hinted at but not disclosed. This is true for all incarnations of the article, and is very unhelpful – adding to raised tensions.

The ‘Atheist Sub Editor’s main criticism was that; Theology requires no belief on the part of the Theologian, in CHRISTIANITY as the subject.

The article was readily altered to accommodate him, for in the process the text reverted back to Theology being Christian! (But no change back for the title). This has not been challenged, except by the same ‘singing fish’ Scout that challenged it the first time, but then appeared to back down (in an ‘oh hum I-am-so-tired-of-losing-this-one way. Read her words in the thread – how unconstructive).

On a ‘technical point’ the unintelligible sentences commented on in PR occurred because of a corrupted file download during a BT line fault – as posted. The corrected file was used for the article, and so was not submitted as such. If editing is seen ‘live’ by a viewer, then the article may have looked wrong at some point in some places – but I do not know if this is true.

I am not clear as to how PR is measured. How many positive comments outweigh negative ones? How about silly comments that are simply antagonistic to the subject?

Anyway I have already posted a plea to get back to constructive PR. This was ignored almost straight away! I am on record as stating that I want to be true and even minded. I have seen no other undertaking from anyone else.

I must tell you that this personal page is now only kept open for the subject of the article.
I use a different Nickname and page for everything else, to try and keep some enjoyment going. Personal remarks etc., will be referred on a case-by-case basis to adjudication if they appear in PR, without further comment.

H2G2 is not much fun at this point, but I hope it will get better, since I am a ‘volunteer’ as well, in that this is taking a lot of time up. Thanks for your measured and considered input on this subject. I would be interested on how you think the article could be ‘completed’ – since I consider it complete now, and any expansion would probably be very contentious given historical events. This is a genuine question – as I am genuinely interested in your input.

I am loathed to spend time on something that will never get past the Scouts in PR, but hope to be happily surprised.

Thank you for your time,

‘Towel Surfer’

Hello Towel Surfer

I have read the entry several times and have been following the PR thread, and have been intending to make some comments there, but haven't done so yet, partly because of some personal health problems.

I am writing here to take up the point you made when you wrote about

>>my colleague feeling he was loosing editorial control of his own work,

It is not always appreciated by writers that in submitting an entry via PR to be included in the Edited Guide you do indeed relinquish editorial control over the final product. For this reason, indeed, some writers never submit to PR.

It is quite possible that if this entry was to go forward into the Edited Guide it would only be after some changes have been made. You might not want this, and you are of course at liberty to remove the entry from PR at any time before it is selected, leaving your original work intact, as part of the Guide, searchable in the database, and completely within your editorial control.

Forgive me if I am simply telling you what you already knew.

Bels

Thanks Bels,

You are correct, in that it He and not I, that felt that he was losing control.

Many 'Lurkers' now are surfing in (without subscribing) and see this now as a matter of Christian Witness. I am just stating the fact here without stating any view. They have contacted me in confidence, but wanted it said.

The article will remain in PR until it gets into the Edited Guide in some form as far as I am concerned. I mean by that, that I knowingly ticked the box relating to editorial control – especially regarding the Edited Guide.

I need to do several jobs off-line now, but thanks again.

>>a matter of Christian Witness

You mean as in Matt 5:39, Luke 6:28 etc? You could try that in PR...

Hmm, I doubt the atheists would approve of that

As for the matter of editing entries, I thought that the point of editing entries was to "tidy up" stylistic and minor grammatical errors before submitting to the EG. Certainly this happened with mine; there were a few changes that I wasn't sure of, but I do accept that the finished article is probably improved. However...

One of the main aims of h2g2, as far as I understood it, was to allow individuals the right to compose articles on subjects of their own expertise and choosing. These then could be put through the process, etc etc etc.

It seems that the PR thread for this entry is aimed towards a subject rewrite of the entry, not a stylistic one.

Logically, it shouldn't matter if we agree with the base subject or not; the aim of PR is to improve the article as a piece of writing via some hopefully objective debate. Of course, us humans are rarely 100% objective.

Rains,
>>As for the matter of editing entries, I thought that the point of editing entries was to "tidy up" stylistic and minor grammatical errors before submitting to the EG.

No, the scope is much wider than that. For example, Sub-editors are told to
>> prune out any parts that are unsuitable, and add any gems of your own.

See <./>Subeditors-What</.>

Sounds logical, though it does warn about adding incorrect facts. I can see where this might be necessary with some entries, but it still sounds that the main point is to keep the work as original as possible, and only add to it when it would benefit the article, or remove parts where absolutely necessary.

Hi,
I'm just posting to say that I'm still reading this thread.
I've nothing to add as yet.

Just a note to say that there are Christians in H2g2. I'm one of them.
I head my personal space with a rainbow and the words: God had placed his bow in the heavens.
that said i was wondering why you don't use the preferences button on your personal space to give yourself a nickname. If you want towel Surfer you could type it in there. Yours in Christ Shagbark