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

Caer is right, the system of critique is analogous to Peer Review. The difference is that it's in a closed group and I think that's necessary even if it leaves us open to accusations of secretiveness - and to investigative adventures such as Atled's.

Drawing is much like singing. Most people claim not to be able to do it and those that can do it often lack the confidence to do so in public. Lots of superb arias get no further than the bathroom walls.

I think we would have very few artists if the artwork was reviewed - and sometimes rejected - openly on h2g2.

Inevitably there will be negative criticism and currently it takes place in private. The referee's decision is final. Once a picture has been blobbed we only say nice things about it on site. I don't see any advantage in dragging the negative stuff over from the Group and chewing it over again here and I've a nasty feeling Tango was intending to do just that had his Atled ruse succeeded. Even if decisions made in the past were wrong, each picture is only a picture - no lives have been lost - and nothing is going to be changed by giving stuff a public airing.

Similiarly, stuff that has been blobbed is almost by definition OK, even if not perfect, and there's nothing to be gained by picking at it. Every single CA has made some small technical errors in their work; the important thing is what the work looks like when viewed by an ordinary observer sitting a sensible distance from their monitor.

Not really... i guess you could with the onsite stuff, but i'm not sure what to look for onsite until i look at the offsite stuff, and the offsite stuff is mixed in with loads of things which have to remain secret. I know that sounds hypocritical, and i guess it is, but in this case it really is unavoidable. Thanks for the offer though.

Tango

Yes, that does indeed sound hypocritical.

There seem to be so many unavoidable things in your life, Tango.

"stuff that has been blobbed is almost by definition OK"

Keyword is "almost". It's the times when that isn't true that is the problem.

Tango

What problem? They're only pictures on a website. Even if we mess one up monumentally (which we don't), it wouldn't be a disaster.

There are things in that backlog that seriously threaten the future of DNA, so yes, it is unavoidable. There are a lot of unavoidable things, yes, pity that, but such is life.

Tango

Meanwhile you can always go talk to other CA's and see whether their impressions agree with Amy's and my simulpost...

'seriously threaten the future of DNA'

Wow!

Hey! They've rumbled our plot to kidnap Jim Lynn .

That might do some good actually... you get jim away from the bbc and he could do some real work.

Tango

"There are things in that backlog that seriously threaten the future of DNA"

What is there about pictures that could destroy DNA?

I can see the point of the selection of images being done 'in camera'. I like art and enjoy seeing it, but I wouldn't know what image would look good and what wouldn't once it was pasted on to an entry or article. I trust those who do to make the selections.

I am constantly amazed at the quality of the images on h2g2 and really think those deserve awards in their own right.

As to threats to the site itself, it seems some are afoot but I think they will not make much difference and that topic is being discussed elsewhere.

"As to threats to the site itself, it seems some are afoot but I think they will not make much difference and that topic is being discussed elsewhere."

The threats I'm talking about have nothing to do with art and are not being discussed anywhere onsite. They just happen to be discussed offsite in the same place.

Tango

I'm getting confused. This is nothing to do with art?

This discussion is about Atled's attempt at deception. Lil wanted you to know how this has affected her as the host of the Atelier. We want you to know how this has affected the CA recruitment system by taking away our ability to trust applicants to be who they say they are.

It's essential to us that the person making the application is the same as the person producing the test pieces... is the same as the person who does the critique in the yahoo group... is the same as the person who creates the art as a CA. We can't have a group persona as a CA. It never occurred to us before that anyone would do the test but then let others participate using the same account but it appears that someone might. And we can't have a loophole that allows people who have been chucked out of a volunteer group to sneak back in using a false identity.

In addition to explaining how we feel about Atled's adventure we also want to provide you with enough information so that you can assure us that you won't be trying that investigative technique again. And don't give us that twaddle about not being able to promise because there might be circumstances in the future where you would have to infiltrate the CAs. There *are* no circumstances, and *will be* no circumstances, where *you* have to do any such thing. If there are problems in the CAs it's up to the CAs to sort it out initially. To suggest that amongst such a disparate group of talented, creative, experienced researchers there is no one who can spot a problem and sort it out is insulting.

If you think there is a problem with this website then you should take your concerns to the people who run it - the Italics. If the problem is dna-wide, talk to Jim Lynn and Peta. If you don't get satisfaction there, you take the matter to their bosses.

The more questions we ask the murkier it gets. I'm trying to imagine a DNA-destructive picture... but that is by way of a joke.

Obviously Tango cannot be referring to the art itself but to something about the process.

And STILL we're churning our wheels while the problems remain of researchers trying to hack the CA list and what impact that has on the whole question of trust. Tango feels that if he can just get into the list he's going to find something so awful that revealing it will justify having destroyed the scheme and our faith in each other. This thing is so awful that it justifies HIM (and perhaps others with him) behaving unethically.

It follows from that that Amy and I are deliberately hiding this awful thing. Which means, if Tango is right, that I am lying and have been all along.

And I'm not supposed to feel bothered about this particularly? I should wait a week or so while Tango composes his document about how I and the rest of the CAs are destroying DNA?

And we must accept Tango's word about all this, just as he is not accepting ours?

My reason for not letting you help me sift through backlog has nothing to do with art, and is to do with the safety of DNA. Of course this discussion has to do with art. I seem to be being misunderstood a lot today...

Tango

Address the content of our posts, Tango. You're not being misunderstood, it's just that you aren't saying anything meaningful.

What is 'the safety of DNA' supposed to mean?

Or perhaps you don't know. Perhaps the puppetmaster hasn't explained things fully to the puppet.

You are a puppet, aren't you Tango?

In answer to Tango, just in case Amy and I simulpost yet again, yes, you do. The thread is flying along, so if one's not explicit about expressing oneself, all sorts of strange conclusions are going to be reached.

So you don't feel you can just say what you're thinking, then, without constructing an elaborately researched article.

I don't know, why not just accuse us? What have we done?

And what is it about DNA that is keeping Jim Lynn from getting any real work done?

Amy is fiercer than me. It must be those mandibles, or maybe inhaling formic acid all day.

"Address the content of our posts, Tango. You're not being misunderstood, it's just that you aren't saying anything meaningful."

I will address the main contents of your posts in the article, you know that. I will try to be clearer in what i say, the simulposts aren't helping.

"What is 'the safety of DNA' supposed to mean?"

Let's put it this way. If i put my mind to it, i could use the information in the backlog to bring this site to its knees before midnight. Is that clear enough?

"Or perhaps you don't know. Perhaps the puppetmaster hasn't explained things fully to the puppet.

You are a puppet, aren't you Tango?"

I'm going to go along with this one, because i'm curious to know who's puppet you think i am...

"In answer to Tango, just in case Amy and I simulpost yet again, yes, you do. The thread is flying along, so if one's not explicit about expressing oneself, all sorts of strange conclusions are going to be reached."

So it seems. I will try to be clearer.

"So you don't feel you can just say what you're thinking, then, without constructing an elaborately researched article."

That's about right.

"I don't know, why not just accuse us? What have we done?"

I don't know what you've done. That's the point.

"And what is it about DNA that is keeping Jim Lynn from getting any real work done?"

Ok, this time you just misread it. I said BBC, not DNA. The BBC has jim doing work on more than just h2g2. If he was working for the BBC, and was just working for h2g2, he could help the site a lot more. The site would no longer exist, of course, so that is a problem, but as i was only joking, i think that can be excused.

Tango