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

I just had a look at the 'modified' version of Bruce's Bird article ( http://www.h2g2.com/A256592?section=all ). At first it was just too startlingly... well.. I commented on it.

After a second plow-through I think you may have gotten confused on the and tags, as they seem to be logically in reverse on the article. It would seem much more logical to have the name of each bird (which currently uses <SUBHEADER&gt as a new section ( -- the blue bar) and each trait (As pets, logical names) using the tag.

It just looks silly the way it is.

Also, TPTWVH might want to reconsider removing the pictures for this particular page, as what good is a bird guide without showing what is being described? Perhaps shrink them, but...

'Nonnie

The SUBHEADERs are inserted automatically by the SECTION tag.

On a grammatical note the phrase "The Rainbow Lorikeet1 is widely distributed along the east Australian coast, from Cape York South, to Victoria and into South Australia" means south from Cape York etc. The 'South' should not be capitalised. And Magpie should be capitalised as are the other breeds - though I think this was my original error.

In the Kookaburra section "They are prevalent in ranges throughout the south-western corner of Western Australia, having been successfully introduced there in 1897." I read to mean that they are generally found in ranges (mountains) in WA - this isn't the case.
The original phrase "and now ranges throughout south-western WA having been successfully introduced in 1897." was meant to convey the fact that their (geographic) range now includes WA. Sorry if it was confusing.

Though I was fully expecting the multimedia stuff to go from the entry (though I had hoped the art team might manage some pics as an article about parrots seems somewhat lacking without them - or any description other than weight & length) I must say I'm disappointed at the stylistic changes made to the article.

Sectioning the entry also severely disrupts the flow.

Hello Anonymouse,

I hope things are well in your world. Thanks for the posting; some good comments here, and being the enlightened, liberal bunch we are, we're taking them on board!

In fact, I have no problems whatsoever implementing changes to the mechanics of this particular Entry with regard to sectioning, headers, subheaders, etc. At the time of editing we hadn't really formulated a clear position on all of this. Your comments on the piece are appreciated, have been noted, and changes made accordingly. Hooray!

However, our current position on Approved Entry Guides does not allow for the inclusion of artwork generated outside of the Guide team. Principally, this ensures thematic consistency.

Anyway, nice to hear from you and speak to you soon.

Cheers

G'day Bruce,

Nice to hear from you. Your comments on sectioning are particularly pertinent given that we've recently decided to not to use sections anymore on Apporved Guide Entries. Consider Sydney Birdlife de-sectioned. Also, the two small geographical points you raised have been noted.

But, as much as I like pictures of exotic birds, as I said to Anonymouse, we don't accept any artwork from outside of the Guide team. This allows for thematic consistency.

Catch you later.

Thanks for the amendments - though "The Rainbow Lorikeet is widely distributed along the east Australian coast, from the south of Cape York" should be "south from Cape York" - Cape York being about the size of the UK it's a significant difference. Sort of like the difference between - 'the UK, which extends south from Scotland' & 'the UK, which extends south of Scotland'. Though Scottish separatists may prefer the 2nd it is not correct.

>But, as much as I like pictures of exotic birds, as I said to Anonymouse, we don't accept any artwork from outside of the Guide team. This allows for thematic consistency. <

Err, yes - that's why I said "I had hoped the art team might manage some pics". I had hoped that the h2g2 Art Team would, as they have done for quite a number of entries, be able to do some suitable artwork.

I haven't been here for awhile, so I thought I'd re-read Bruce's bird page. My first surprise was that it has only recently been edited and accepted, despite having been around for about FIVE months.

The second shock was the appalling blandification it has been subjected to. It now looks and sounds like a half-hearted school project written by an uninspired 13 year old with a poor grasp of grammar and geography. (Just to reiterate: Cape York is at the top of Australia, Victoria and South Australia - interestingly enough - are at the bottom. The birds are in between.) All the individuality of Bruce's writing style has been leached out. This is not editing, it is re-writing. And the quality of the re-writing is so juvenile, I expected it to finish with "And then I woke up and it was only a dream".

For people who claim to be whacky, zany and liberal-minded you seem remarkably keen to remove any traces of the above qualities from the guide entries. Having removed all the fun, interactive stuff like the pictures and sound effects, plus the amusing writing style, you've left us with a dull, poorly constructed bit of text. I might as well look up Australian birds in the Encyclopaedia Britanicca. Except that they'd have pictures, and correct information. Perhaps you should all go and work there. Once you've brushed up on your grammatical, syntactic, compositional and research skills.

Oh, and in the As a pet? section on the sulphur crested cockatoo, you've got an apostrophe - which I think is intended to be inverted commas - without closing.

Thanks for the comments, Bruce and Eeyore. This is one of the great things about h2g2 that something like the Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't have: user feedback. It's excellent to see the feedback system in h2g2 working well.

As we work on the guide, taking this sort of stuff into account is all part of growing such an organic concept. It's quite a learning curve, but we're all getting there.

Thanks for the 2nd set of amendments - though the Rainbow Lorikeets range still seems to be causing some problems.

"The Rainbow Lorikeet1 is widely distributed along the east Australian coast, south from Cape York and down into Victoria."

What happened to South Australia? - in these times of shrinking wildlife habitats the removal of 984,377 sq km (representing one eighth of the Australian continent) with the stroke of an editorial keyboard is sure to get the environmentalists off side.

;^)#

Yes, well, Uhm.. And I *erm* apologize profusely for the tone of that *ahem* 'other' posting... It's just that...well.. I quite liked Bruce's original and was.. erm.. rather shocked, shall we say?

As for not using outside graphics and copyright issues, I quite understand that. Erm.. But wouldn't it be a great excuse for some lucky sod at TDV to get a plane ticket to Sydney? Perhaps you could even coax Bruce into putting them up (with their brand new digital camera) so they could take piccies of the actual birds in question.....

*ducks*

'Nonnie

Maybe an SGML based implementation of the system would cure the styling issues you talk of. I can provide this for a huge fee

As for thematic consistentcy - got any Candy Flip.

Another great thing that is possible for h2g2 is to dispense with the whole idea of a "house style". Why not leave that to newspapers and every other encyclopaedia ever compiled? h2g2 could be a truly "organic concept" by demanding accuracy of information and English usage(two things not especially outstanding at the moment)while allowing each contributor to express her or his own style of writing. The only thing a contributor to this encyclopaedia gets is the pleasure of being part of h2g2 - if you alter a person's entry beyond recognition, all you are doing is benefiting from having information collected for you, without giving back anything to the contributor.

What we insist on is a consistency of quality in the approved guide - and that's it. The problem is that 'quality' is such a subjective term (as anyone who has read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance will agree), and that's where we have most of the discussions re editorial changes.

The problem is that it's always hard to see your own writing in a totally objective light. I go back and read stuff I wrote a couple of years ago and cringe, but at the time I thought I was Dickens. What we do in the editorial team is apply our experience to produce a quality product (while remembering we're only human), and if that means stripping out unfunny jokes and dodgy writing style, and sticking it in a slightly more formal tone, then that's what it means. Remember that the originals are always left alone and that we edit copies of entries, so it's only the approved portion that is stylised: the whole of the rest of the guide is as created by the researchers.

The house style - which should be interpreted as 'house quality' - is fundamental to the guide, and I think it would be a disaster to dispense with it. Remember Usenet? What a mess...

Sorry - never heard of Usenet and only made it through half of Zen and the A of MM (Although I do remember thinking he should have just looked "quality" up in the dictionary).

On comparing the appreciative responses to Bruce's original birds article with the responses to the approved version, some review of the current "house quality" seems appropriate. That is, if user feedback is honestly important to h2g2.

Let's hope you guys don't look back on your Dickensian editorial efforts in a couple of years and cringe.