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

Hi!
I'll just repeat the questions I asked Max Moxon:

***
Let's say that I did write an article which consits of a) a lot of my personal
knowledge and words b) is based on and uses parts of an already existing
entry c) and sums up the discussions around that (old) entry and d) takes
pieces from a third persons web-site (who knows about me quoting him and
has allowed me to do so as long as he gets a credit in the text). All this has
been stated at the very beginning of the article when it was
submitted/recommended/entered into the editorial process.
This information is now gone from the version which is pending with the editor
(I've got no idea as to how final that version is, it cropped up on my page
replacing my original article). Question one: Is that ok?

Also, is there anything I can do (apart from asking the Editor) to remove
incorrect information (i.e. stuff that I did not claim, nor is claimed by others;
information that is plainly wrong IMHO. Both express and implyed
information/connotation) he (the editor) has put into the article?

Can I stop the Editor from adding *non-factual* comments to what I have
written? Especially comments which question the truth/accuracy of the rest of
the article? (I mean if he personally doesn't like *my* entry there's still the
option to publicly discuss the entry (either the original or the edited version).
But I strongly feel that since the whole thing runs under my name, I should be
the person to express personal views; if I chose to do so. I might add that the
article contains views shared by the people I mentioned at the beginning and
not only my own foolish ideas.)

I did contact the editor in question and asked him to correct the inaccuracies
(suppling URLs to back my arguments); but there as been no respose yet.
I realise that all else fails I can still post an author's note to discuss the entry
stating what I don't like in the edited version. But I feel that would neither
make the h2g2-Team nor me happy.

***

so far so good. Max asked me to supply some more detail. Ok, the old entry which started the whole thing is A148079 - The UK Goth scene, which was then extended by me to A391790 - An Attempt "what is Goth?". A391790 contains all the references to the other article/thread/web-site. Having introduced the entry at the peer review scheme (the first entry in that scheme....) it was instanty liked by a bunch of people and the ensuing discussion led to some changes and additions to the text. You might want to read the threads. Then comes September 5th and Løønytünes took over as a sub-editor. We had some exchange about the article (see the G'day-thread on my homepage) and improved it even further. The A431137 in the conversation is invalid by now, seem Løønytünes uses it for all the editorial work. I was and am very pleased with that (as can be read in the G'day-thread; which also contain information which might be relevant to (sub-)editors). Two days ago I noticed that the link to A391790 had been replaced by a link to A471160 where John the GURUdener subs the thing. My dislikes have been posted on his homepage, but there has been no reply yet. To sum it up: The Goth tribe has got nothing to do with the Goth movement. Not even the name stems from it. Thus all the reference to the Goth tribe are nonsense. The bit about suffering the world being not recorded as a medival German quote/having been used by Byron is nonsense as well, as the Goth movement we are talking about stems from Punk and that was some time after the Dark Ages and Byron. His comment on the missing individuality in clothing is what I meant when I wrote about non-factual comments to Max. See also the links and stuff in the Note from the Author thread on John's homepage.

The easiest and IMHO best solution is to get the Løønytünes-Version on into the final Editorial process and skip all the mucking about with John's version. Unless there should be any difficulties with Løønytünes-version which I can't really imagine.

Thanks for an open ear
Tube

(It's Mark, not Max. )

Argh! Ashes on my head!
Sorry!

John was/is in fact working on the A391790 - version i.e. the original one that Løønytünes improved later under a different A######. Thus it would seem that the sub-editors are doing double work on it. Is that due to any of the editors not liking the Løønytünes-Version and sending it back to the subs, or just a muck-up in work allocation?
I just hope that Løønytünes' Version did not get lost in cyberspace...
Tube

Ho-no, it wouldn't be due to the fact that any of us didn't like the Løønytünes version - he does great stuff! Incidentally, so does John!

It looks like both Løønytünes and John worked on the entry, either because there were two versions of the entry, or because the entry was submitted both via the old queue system and the new peer review system. I think the second explanation is more likely and in the changeover from one system to the other the duplication was overlooked. The under-the-bonnet workings of the system in-house isn't quite as automatic as we'd like it to be, so it looks like human error came into play.

New information is often added to entries, either because the sub knows something about the subject, or because another Researcher has added in some facts in the threads hanging off the entry. However, if there is anything in the entry on Goths which is not accurate, please pick out sentences that state inaccurate facts, tell me whereabouts in the entry they are, and tell me how the sentence should read.

And never fear, older versions of the entry haven't been lost, if you look under 'My most recent guide entries' the original versions will be there.

Just out of interest, what is the A number of the Løønytünes version? There seem to be quite a few numbers flying about for this one and I'd like to be clear!

Hope that helps

Well, obviously both worked independently on my original article (A391790). Doesn't really matter for what reason. As for adding information. I kept up-to-date with all converations/discussions and the bits that where added (by John) are not from them. And AFAIK neither L��nyt�nes nor John have any in-deapth knowlegde of Goth; which is perfectly OK as that's why I wrote the article. The bits that are inaccurate are pointed out in order of apprearance in the "A471160 - Goth, a note from the author" thread on John's page (http://www.h2g2.com/F4027?thread=87921&latest=1). John considers his reference to the Goth tribe "a humorous comparison based on their lack of commonality, and I'm sure that most readers won't be confused by it. " Which brings me back to the question of what the sub-editor's powers are. I didn't put it in there, I think it's not funny but confusing. Same question but different angle: John states "although it may not be quite what you would have wished it to be, I think it's a good piece of work that presents the core of what you had to say in a way that should have a broad appeal." Who's got the power to decide what an article contains in the end? OK, you legal stuff says that it's the editors (!), fair enough, I can see many good reasons for that rule. But I felt that the (especially sub-)editor's job was to weed out the spelling/punctuation/naughty bits and add links to other entries. I also felt that content-variation was neither their job nor the aim of h2g2 (unless of course there are mistakes and/or the editing person can claim more knowledge than the researcher), else there would be no sense in having the researchres write the articles. I guess what it boils down to is: do I have to be satified with an official guide entry to my name that only represents the core of what I had to say? L��nyt�nes Version? I have no idea where to find it. He assigned a working A# (that being http://www.h2g2.com/A431137) to it but that now links to a piece on violins. It does not crop up when one searches the guide for "Goth". I'm sorry, but I do not have a copy of the text. Maybe L��nyt�nes' got one tucked away somewhere. Basically it was the original article, nicely layouted and in decent English plus the changes discussed in the G'day-thread on my page. How about this: you read the version by L��nyt�nes and John and then make a choice between the two sub-edited versions after comparing them to the original. In the end some Editor will have to decide on a sub-edited version. You luck is that you have two to choose from... ;-) Anyway and apart from that all: What about my questions on the credits and the non-factual comments? As for the fear of losing the original article: I know that it is not lost, even though 'My most recent guide entries' links to John's version.... ;-) Tube

PS to the Core of what I had to say (simplifyed and extreme to get the point across):
If I write an entry that says: "The Rolling Stones are the greatest rock band of all times" and the entry comes back from editing reading "The Rolling Stones are the greatest rock band of all times, but their lead singer's not very good-looking" then the core of what I wrote is still there. Plus a lot more that I never wanted to say or be deemed to have said by a reader.

Oh, look there it is! The Løønytünes-Version http://www.h2g2.com/A473924

Almost a very unfortunate Spoonerism


;^)#

Hi, just me (again). I noticed that the Article on Goth (John's version A471160) was declared pending, while the L��nyt�nes-Version (A473924), which John, L��nyt�nes and I finally agreed on as being the better one (http://www.h2g2.com/F4027?thread=87921) still just floats about. Tube

Hi Tube,

We'll be looking into it later today or tomorrow - promise!

Not to worry. I already sorted it out with Sam Semple via e-mail. He accepted the decision reached by Loonytunes, John and me and now works on Loonytunes' Version even though it is less funny...
Cheers
Tube

Hi Tube,

Cool! Thanks for letting me know and congratulations on a great entry!

Thanks! It wouldn't be such a great entry if it wasn't for the help of the (sub-)editor(s).

Nevertheless, the question of the credits (see first post of this thread) is still pending... Or would it be enough if I was to post a message/discussion to the final article?

Tube

Hi!
Errr... The link to the Goth-entry on my site (My Most Recent Guide Entries) is gone. I thought once the "pending" notice was removed I'd get back a link to the original version. Could I please have the link to A391790 back?
Ta!
Tube

A temporary editing blip. Should be all right now

Ok, I know.... I promise that this'll be the last time that I bother you with the Goth-thing. But could I please have my link to the my original version (A391790) back (as a Recent Guide Entry)? It went missing when the edited version came into being. Thanks!
Tube
PS: and BTW: Happy New Year!

Hi Tube,

The entry should have reappeared when your entry was stamped official - I wonder why it hasn't? I'll look into it and let you know!

Anna

I hope the missing link does not cause too much trouble. If so I think I could create a new entry as I got some version of the original text floating about somewere on my harddisk.
Tube