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

The idea is to create an account open for all users

This way we can work on the same entry

Creating in high pace several entries at the same time

First copy and paste the content to the journal before you update anything!

Just in case somebody should alter the personal space instructions that you have written in an abusive fashion, I have created a companion instructions page here: A2594324, where there is some more information too.

Traveller in Time on his head
"Make it a rule not to post anywhere else as this identity. It will generate more confusion about who posted it then anything else?"

Oh. Then I've broken the rule already. Never mind. I'll try not to do it again.

I have added something to the personal space too. Is it OK?

Traveller in Time reading between the 'Baryonic' lines
"Perfect, beside you forgotten to update the journal.

Perhaps it is more clear when we just try to post a summary as the first journal, later on the GuideML will be less disruptive"

I agree. I have updated the journal.

So, how do people receive credit for their work? What insentive is there for people to use this, when they can collaborate and be seen to be collaborating on a topic?

How do you prevent someone overwriting your previous edit, considering h2g2 is open to all and has members from different time zones?

Just a few thoughts. Bear in mind that we won't be able to do anything if this account is sabotaged, and if anyone misuses it, the account and your own personal accounts might well be put at risk.

'Oh, it wasn't us, it was someone using our open account' won't work I'm afraid. As the owners of this account, you will be held ultimately responsible for how it's used.

Those are interesting thoughts; but this project is really just another 'trial' at the moment. To take your observations in order I would say:

People receive credit in the same way as usual because they simply add their researcher number to the list of researchers who have written/edited the entry. It is very similar to a normal colaborative entry.

To prevent overwriting we encourage the use of the journal to keep back-up copies, and also a technique of having another browser window open to check that the page is not simultaneously being updated by somebody else.

I understand that you will be unable to help in the case of sabotage, as was probably the case with the 'Noticeboard' project... but I am a little hesitant about my 'own personal account'. Why should the Baryonic Being be put at risk?

Do you mean that if somebody abuses the account, you could close the BB account?

Because of my paranoia, I have temporarily changed the password on this account until I can be sure that this account (BB) is safe from closure etcetera in the eventuality of misuse/abuse.

Meanwhile, I propose that the following system is enacted if the Collaborator scheme is to continue:

All researchers wishing to take part in the project should 'register' themselves, by sending an e-mail requesting their 'registration', at which they will receive a reply with details of the password.

I don't know whether that would work either (I suspect it wouldn't), but it would certainly deter the passers-by to the project that just want to log in to abuse the account.

Traveller in Time on his head
"Jimster wondered:
>>How do you prevent someone overwriting your previous edit, considering h2g2 is open to all and has members from different time zones.
No problem at all if the contributing researchers _First_ make a copy of the refreshed content to the corresponing journal. This can be done after [Preview] ing the entry but _MUST_ be done before [Update Entry]


>>how do people receive credit for their work? What insentive is there for people to use this, when they can collaborate and be seen to be collaborating on a topic?
Again no problem, well, not really the journal postings should contain the name of respective researcher. Perhaps we also should add the U number.

(posting 9) Glad this is going to be a group account after all"

I am very worried about what might happen in view of Jimster's comments. What do you think?

OK. I have calmed down and put everything back as it was.

Seriously, what is your opinion on Jimster's comment and the possibility that your account and my account could be jeopardised due to abuse on this account? (If indeed, that was what he meant, and I think it was).

Traveller in Time sticking his head out
" First and for all grab your , a cup of , and relax a bit.

The only way to let this kind of account function as we all want it to is keeping a low profile.
Like I mentioned before , and not announce it in Ask H2G2 for example. Also we should not use this account for postings outside the own journals.

"

OK. Thank you. So you are not worried about your own account being, in any way, jeopardised?

Traveller in Time on his head
"Actually yes, very worried"

We really need Jimster to respond, but he doesn't appear to be online at the moment.

On the Wikipedia, users are encouraged to register before using the site. What would you think of an idea where users of the Collaborator account had to 'register' or 'log in' before using it?

And, what would be your opinion on starting up a new account each from which we could shift responsibility for creation of this project?

The simple fact is not everyone is as honorable as you guys. There are some people who even in recent months have gone out of their way to abuse the site and create as much work as possible for the other volunteers and in-house staff. By having an open account, you're vulnerable to banned researchers using it to re-enter the site. If one of them manages to do something serious via your account to cause it to be premoderated, then for consistency, as with any other premoderated account all the associated ones would also have to go into premoderation.

A way around this is to create a trusted scheme of people who have access to the account, such as the Grim Reaper that was once used by the Scouts, or the UnderGuide Editors account. They were co-ordinated offsite. You can always let new people into the scheme once you're sure they're not trouble-makers.

We're VERY pro-collaboration, and if this scheme increases the amount of collaborative work then we're all behind it (especially as you've ably answered by other queries). But the security issue is still a very real one, and though it would be a shame if someone abused your trust, the fact that every online community has its share of trolls and generally anti-social people suggests to me that it would be highly unlikely for your scheme to be both successful and impervious to misuse. One or the other would have to be sacrificed.

Jims

Traveller in Time on his head
"Can you switch moderation on for non journal postings only?"

Traveller in Time on his head
"'Jimster' has this posting on his list
do not panic!

Indeed the registration bit is the only flaw in this kind of experiment. Anybody can be Collaborator where no registration of any kind is present.

It even slows thing down as when I write something on my own account I am already online.

Perhaps there is a key! All collaborating writers post to the journal thread and the Collaborater operator converts them to entries. Sounds familair, I guess we have dozens of these projects."

Thank you, Jimster, for your kind words and useful clarification.

So, I think it is unanimous that we DEFINITELY require some sort of security 'registration' method. Should this be done using e-mail, or could I set up some external website for 'registration' purposes? Once we have such a method it will be safer to announce the project to the masses, I suppose.

By "I guess we have dozens of these projects", what exactly do you mean, anyway?