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

I've been watching all of this Guide-survival talk with interest. 'Survival of the Fittest' was an interesting name for a thread title, to me. Not surprisingly, I have thoughts.

To me, an attitude of survival is not the right one to take, right now. When I joined, which was in late 2002, early 2003, people were bemoaning the imminent collapse of h2g2, the gradual degradation of the level of civilized discourse and the fact that the site was becoming less EG oriented were major topics of discussion. I'm not saying that they were wrong (except maybe about a collapse) but my point is that it didn't work, apparently.

An attitude of staving off destruction is a scary one, but it's depressing. It kind of depressed me when I saw no new entries at all for one day.

But something snapped in my head when I was reading through a post tonight. We should not be doing this to stave off our beloved site's destruction. We must do it for ourselves, our community, our guide, our friends. We must do it to fulfill the vision of Douglas Adams, and bring the community back to its vision and purpose. We see a community in trouble, a community that is sick, and we must try to help it. But if I'm going to go through that process, I don't want the community to just *not die*. I want it to not be sick at all. I want it healthy, and alive. I want to see a rebirth. A new h2g2. To ask people to contribute enough to be able to skimp by at one entry a month is just simply not my kind of attitude. It's not inspiring... it's just giving six months extra to a cancer patient. I want to live, dammit. I want strength and I want vitality.

I think that now more than ever, we have the opportunity to bring people into action, and build up our site in a new way. Preventing demise, but only just, is an inherently pessimistic attitude. I think we need to find a totally new way of doing things and a new way of looking at our guide. This site has so much potential, but it's all for nothing if we don't take advantage of that potential. If we must bring ourselves back from the edge of the abyss, let's come back stronger than ever and build a dynamic guide that won't need this kind of concern in the future.

We have to do it for ourselves, and not just for the site. If this site is to thrive, it is going to be because the people are engaged and excited by it, and not simply for a sense of obligation towards it. That strategy will ultimately fail.

I hate to be a broken record, but I still feel that if the Guide is to survive, the strongest writers must lead by example and must prod, if you will, h2g2 towards the sort of engaging and exciting place that it needs to be. I just can't help thinking that the panics of now and then, and then the movements to give the guide a shot in the arm, are temporary fixes. Something more permanent is needed.

I agree. But I feel there is an immediacy that gives us little time for debate. For now, we *are* staving off destruction, as you put it; like it or not, and none of us do, that seems to be how it is. We do need more long-term thinking, and I've said as much - that these initiatives don't get us anywhere after everyone's forgotten about them a couple of months later. Everyone that has been heavily involved with the EG for any length of time knows that.

So yes, let's talk and debate how to improve the site's future health. Let's keep it in the original vision, keep it organic and growing and open to new ideas. But don't say that I'm 'ask[ing] people to contribute enough to be able to skimp by at one entry a month'. You don't mention that I 'believe passionately in the dream of Douglas Adams' or that I'm also asking for people to commit time to reviewing and volunteering. I've been quite clear that we need to improve the site as a whole, but we do need to become sustainable first - hence my 'idea'. You make it sound like I'm some ignoramus who thinks that a good week's work will get it all looking spotless again.

I'm going to have to come back to this, J, it's far too late, and I should've been in bed several hours ago. Please remember, though, that I'm as damn passionate about this site as you are.

A thousand pardons, Rich, I didn't mean to address you as any kind of culprit or ignoramus at all. Truth be told, when I started thinking, I just started typing that volley of ideas and thoughts up without considering how I would use it. Then I decided to try to get your thoughts on the subject, and adapted it a bit into a post, but I apologize that I came off as directing it at you and your efforts, which are commendable.

I'll also let this sleeping dog lie until morning though, since it's actually starting to get late over here... five hours behind you

Actually, Jodan, I've come straight here before checking any other posts to apologise myself. It was very late last night, I was in a pretty bad mood, had just fallen out with a good friend and shouldn't really have been online anyway. It was one of those times when you're just about to log off and sleep, but you see a post at just the wrong time and decide you'll take it personally. I think I know you well enough to think that if you did mean to criticise me specifically, you'd come over to my PS or at least name me rather than be vague in a jornal. I took it personally, but I know it wasn't intended that way.

I know there will be a backlash against this whole idea; the quality vs quantity debate is bound to start pretty soon, and as the instigator of the latest 'quantity' exercise I suppose I'll have to get used to defending myself anyway. The irony is that I'm a firm believer in quality first and always have been, and I have a huge respect for all you've done for the Guide and the ways in which you've tried to improve it.

It's interesting, actually, because the stand-out sentence in your journal wasn't the one I quoted, but 'I still feel that if the Guide is to survive, the strongest writers must lead by example and must prod, if you will, h2g2 towards the sort of engaging and exciting place that it needs to be'. We agree absolutely on that; where we differ is on the detail, how we put that across to the community and how we want them to be involved. Recognising that is crucial, because the last thing we need is for the passionate people to start falling out over the small print.

Don't worry about it. I'm not very easily offended anyways. I'm sorry to hear about your friend, though.

I'm not against working to increase quantity of entries. I think that what you're aiming for is great, and I don't see any reason why asking for more entries should really harm the overall quality of the guide. Quantity and quality are, in the realm of the guide, not at all mutually exclusive. It's not an either-or situation. In the same vein of thought, there's no reason why increasing the quality of entries in the guide should decrease the number of entries going into the guide.

Whenever anyone goes on about working to increase the quality of entries, the first reaction is generally, "Well, that means he's in favor of increasing standards for entries. That'll keep a lot of good people, like newbies, out." But that approach isn't really something that I am interested in. Raising standards wouldn't really do anything to help quality in the end anyways. The same number of good entries would still be written, and the same number of rather boring entries would still be written.

To truly raise the quality of the guide, you don't raise the bar of acceptance. You create an EG culture, among scouts, reviewers and writers, that truly values the excellent and the most interesting entries (B's Entry of the Month thinger is helpful in this regard... though if I had the reins, I'd focus more on the unconventional rather than just very well written conventional entries, but that's a matter worthy of debate). It's a grassroots kind of mentality - from the top, up... rather than a top, down "raising the bar" kind of measure.

I honestly believe that if a culture of excellence and acceptance (which may mean relaxing some of the arbitrary writing guidelines which stifle creativity) is promoted, it will inspire and stimulate the creative writing community of h2g2. If getting an entry written in the EG is something to aspire to, rather than the result of going through the motions, then we will truly have done something, and then we will truly see a rebirth here on hootoo.



PS - do you realize that this isn't a journal entry?

Oh, it isn't a journal Entry, is it? I wondered why I was the only respondent

It's late again. I'll post tomorrow, just in case I make a complete out of myself for a second successive night

A lot of what you've written here makes perfect sense, and - as a philosophy - is excellent, but I'd like to know what you're actually proposing You've clearly got an idea in your head...

The problem I have with it as it stands is you use phrases like:

'You create an EG culture, among scouts, reviewers and writers...'
'If getting an entry written in the EG is something to aspire to...'

This kind of language presumes that there are enough writers, reviewers and Entries to be able to cultivate a culture. You can't work with nothing; at the moment, *anything* that is half-decent and vaguely well-written will get in to the Edited Guide by necessity, because there aren't enough Entries out there for Scouts to be able to pick the cream. I agree that quality and quantity go hand-in-hand; but the Front Page will only be as good as the best Entries which are in PR. Certainly in this context, 'quality' is a fairly loose and relative term.

Personally, I think that if you have something up your sleeve, you're jumping the gun. I think we need to get people commenting and reviewing and writing, not just a priority but as a sole focus. We need to build a solid base of Entries in PR and in the queue, and just put all our effort into that. When it's healthy again - and I think the way people have rallied, it will do so - we can have a good debate about whatever it is you're scheming. The problem is that these things tend to be divisive and often misunderstood, and people get into a bit of sulk because they think they're being told that what they're doing isn't good enough. To be honest, that's the last thing we need right now.

It's great to see you're becoming a Scout again, by the way

I've written a piece for the Post this week explaining in detail the thinking behind my scheme and the reasons why I started it. I'd be delighted if you (and Pin?) fancied following it up in an issue or two's time with some thoughts of your own - I mention this now because I won't be around for a few days before and after its publication

I may submit something, if I feel eloquent anytime in the next week or so

"Personally, I think that if you have something up your sleeve, you're jumping the gun."

You flatter me. Everything I've proposed you can find in one of three or four conversations on this site. I certainly have no secretive plan. I'm not 'scheming'. I'm not well prepared enough to do any of that.

"The problem is that these things tend to be divisive and often misunderstood, and people get into a bit of sulk because they think they're being told that what they're doing isn't good enough. "

Y'know, I've never understood that. If you look at A4053412 PROD, which is just about the clearest explanation of my beliefs, it's all about inclusion rather than exclusion. I can't remember if I wrote any of it, but Pin wrote this paragraph-

"Some people want to write encyclopaedia-style articles. That's cool. Some people prefer to write instruction manuals. That's cool too. Some people want to write dramatic fact-based Entries. Some people want to inject a little humour. Some people want to explore perceptions and opinions rather than the events themselves. Some people want to leave a few loose ends for the reader to tie up. Some people want to write outside their experience, and to speculate a little. All cool. (There are limits, of course. We're not trying to re-shape the Edited Guide completely. But boundaries are always interesting places). And of course some people want to try all these styles. They want to make their next Entry fresh and completely different from their last one. They're the coolest of all."

Most of my thoughts (for tonight) are on the other thread. I'd just be repeating myself and wasting your valuable time if I kept going on...

I know all that, J. I gave my belated support, remember?

I've written my Post article not to lay down the reasons for my little initiative. I think you have to see it from the state it was ten days ago; no one was writing or reviewing, and plenty of people were just waiting for the end. If nothing else, we're turned that around - for now, at least. Going back to the subject of this thread, I've helped it to survive. I think making it thrive is the next step, not the first one, which is why I've made some 'ridiculous' comments over on the other thread. Unfortunately, it's a Post week this week and then I'm away for a few days, so I'll have to leave the debate in your capable hands

No, to be honest, I don't remember all the details of the PROD discussions. To be honest, I've been away from hootoo long enough that I don't remember some of the people on my friends list, so my apologies.

"which is why I've made some 'ridiculous' comments over on the other thread."

Forgive me if I get a bit carried away, but yeah, if I think something's a ridiculous idea, I won't hold my tongue Saying that there is a first step and then a second step is silly, to me, because it says that they can't be done at the same time. I don't know why that would be.

I don't remember the details, either, but one frustrated night I went along and posted my agreement on the PROD page. I wasn't ever vehemently opposed, but I never gave it my wholehearted support until then.

The reason I'd suggest hanging on is purely one of time; everyone has a finite amount of time they can spend on here, and I think that would be better used focussing on getting these lapsed writers and reviewers back into PR fully. Some are doing those things for the first time in years, and I think we need to concentrate on encouraging them lest they get bored and go away again. The fact is that without a constant stream of new Entries on the FP, we won't have a site at all to have this kind of debate on. I may be reading to much into it, but I think the fact that Nats was one of the first to sign up - without any publicity other than it being on my PS - is quite telling in that respect. It's also been deemed important enough to put on the Front Page today.

Of course, the flip side is that you're encouraging a different set of Researchers to be involved in a different way. You're effectively encouraging involvement with a whole new group who wouldn't respond to my kind of initiative.

I don't know what you're expecting me to do which would eat up a lot of everyone's time. Right now, I'm just having a discussion with my friends. If Pin wants to, he can put one of his entries into PR, as a trial balloon, but that's up to him.

"I think we need to concentrate on encouraging them lest they get bored and go away again."

That's exactly one of the benefits of increasing focus on content and opening the guide up. You're going to get fewer bored people, walking away.

"I may be reading to much into it, but I think the fact that Nats was one of the first to sign up - without any publicity other than it being on my PS - is quite telling in that respect."

I don't know. I'm not sure what our shutdown would look like. However, I've seen nothing to make me think that it's imminent. Just to be safe, I've been writing a few entries and have volunteered, but I'm really not worried enough to suspend debate, change, habeas corpus, whatever.

Hi Guys

I fetched up here after reading Rich's Post-piece.
You both care and you both work hard for hootoo. You're both very effective advocates.
Your views too, are fairly close to my own. There isn't perfect alignment, but those other factors mean that we can co-operate and we can certainly make a difference.
Just so you remember where I come from, though, let me explain one aspect of that rather well-chosen paragraph Jodan picked out from the PROD manifesto.
There are styles of writing that the EG excludes, and that paragraph alludes to them. The exclusion is arbitrary. The Guidelines are set in stone, because PR is policed by pedants.
There is fine writing in the EG, sure. Let me tell you, though, that every single example of utterly astonishing writing in hootoo lies outside the EG. There are hundreds of pieces, possibly thousands, that are truly brilliant, and not one of them meets the cloying, deadening strictures of the prevailing Guideline interpretation.
A few days ago, Rich, one of your doyens scared a piece (by langsandy) out of PR, through narrow-minded remarks. The piece withdrawn was finer than that critic could ever write. Don't let's venerate the pedants. You might think you need allies to achieve critical mass, but you will fail if you side with the attitudes that fuel the problem.
I think that the time has come to challenge the Guidelines and to unashamedly celebrate fine writing. The EG's great objective, that of inclusivity leading to a quantity blizzard, has conspicuously failed, but the site need not fail. It's time for the quality blizzard now.
That's what I believe, anyway. If you can put up with that opinion, and if the rest of what I have to offer seems like what you need, then I'm at your disposal.

All right - just bear in mind that I tend to post to these conversations late at night, because I like to have chance to think about them first. And it is really, really late

Much of this post may appear argumentative and/or inflammatory, but I'm just trying to cut to the chase. I apologise if I sound blunt or disparaging at any point, but I'm a doer rather than a talker...

So let me start by saying that we shouldn't be responding to each other's comments by putting little bits of them in quotes. That isn't going to get us anywhere, and we're as guilty as each other (I'm going to lump you together for simplicity in this post, for which I apologise. Perhaps you've come to expect that ). It's a waste of our time. In fact, we have more in common than you might like to admit. We agree that we need better Entries in PR and we agree that better quality will breed. We also agree that we need less pedantic, more content-focused reviewing; we agree that that would encourage more people into PR and lead to better Entries. We agree that there are other ways to write an EG Entry than the 'standard' format. I *think* we agree on most things.

You see, part of the problem for me is that we clearly differ - or at least, we presume we do - because you haven't said, at least recently, what you want changed. Prod happened when I was a reasonably new Scout and reviewer, and my opinions have probably changed a lot since then. Neither of you appear to want to give Prod your full support right now, so what are you proposing exactly? You talk vaguely about the Guidelines, but what do you want to be changed? There are 15 of them. How radical do you want to be? You see, a lot of the discussion has been on this theme, but I don't know what you want to change. A2918874 'breaks' one guideline. I'm all for it. But how far do you want to go?

You see, I'm very open about things (this is not to say you're not); if I see a problem, I try to fix it as best I can in a very public way. I've done a lot of campaigning on various environmental issues, so of course my reaction to difficult situations is to spread the word and get people involved. I guess you'd see this as an opportunity to start afresh with new reviewers and new writers - but my natural instinct is to save it then sort out the detail. In fact, we need to do both, and my only argument with you (so far ) has been the timing. While I'm writing this, I could be spending time with Researchers who haven't been into PR or in EGWW for a while - and it's those people we need to reach first. I know, Jodan, that you think h2g2 would survive without FP Entries or at least that our situation is not that critical; if you're right, then my whole initiative is pointless. But I'm working within that belief, and I hope you respect that even if you disagree with it. You're right, Pin, there isn't perfect alignment - I'm probably a staid, old-schooler to you guys - but I'm only here for the Guide

Finally, you've mentioned langsandy's Entry, but I'm not asking people to review in any particular way, but just to get in there and review. A fortnight ago, there was nothing there; no Entries, no reviewers. If there were more reviewers, the positive comments about his/her entry would have come around quicker - surely that's a good thing? In fact, there were five comments to the effect that is should be in the EG and one that it shouldn't before it was withdrawn, so it's hardly a negative effect of getting more people involved in PR. Anyway, where were you guys when it was in PR? Have either of you been round to his/her PS and offered to sort out the ML and put it through PR for him/her? There were perhaps 1 1/2 negative reviews, but the overwhelming majority of the thread was positive - look at Gnomon's comment (bearing in mind he's a frequent target for pedant-bashers):

'You will certainly have to change the entry, but only slightly. There are plenty of people who will make suggestions here in Peer Review and will help you[...] the look can be sorted out later by a sub-editor. The important thing is to get the content right. The toning down of the "first person" references is the most important thing. If you change the bits which refer to yourself, where possible, to a more encyclopaedic approach, that will cover some of them. Others can be rephrased as quotations...'

I may be missing the point here, but I don't see what's wrong with that.

I was just about to get to bed myself, Rich, so I can only imagine how tired you must be, writing a post like that at that hour.

Well, I often quote other people back to them, not just to disagree with them, but just because I need to be able to organize my thoughts and use some of the more striking sentences to work off of. But I can forgo that.

Right now, all that I'm proposing is a full discussion about the Edited Guide. I'm not arrogant enough to presume that I know what's best for the Guide. I have some ideas, and I think they would help the Guide (wouldn't be doing this if I didn't). However, the healthiest thing for the EG right now would be to reexamine its guidelines and common behaviors. To me, what I'm working for is not as much a change in some help pages (though that would be nice), but rather an attitudinal shift. That's much more elusive, and much more worthy of my efforts. The attitude I want to see is one of open-mindedness, essentially.

As for the piece by langsandy, I mentioned to Pin that the thread was actually more favorable than I would have expected. It is, however, sometimes true that a (perceived) negative remark can hurt an author more than ten positive remarks do. That's something everyone has to deal with. If I had to guess, I'd say langsandy just decided that the forum wasn't his kind of place and found his way back to the AWW.

Hmmm.
You won't hear me criticise Gnomon, btw. He's among the best.

But...
The writing comes first. The crit comes a poor second, whoever gives it.
Sure, langsandy wasn't hurt. No problem there. But the piece he put into PR was quite brilliant, and now it won't go into the EG.

Who lost? We all did.

Gnomon saw how good that Entry was. Some other pedants just saw the f*cking Guidelines.

Do you see what I'm getting at here? No? Try this. You know what awe is?

Awe is what you feel when something touches you and you just go Wow.
An inability to experience awe sometimes occurs naturally, and we call this autism.
When the inability is systematically taught, we call it Peer Review.

PR and the Guidelines are nothing in the sweep of this site. Scouts are nothing. Utterly zilch.

And yet they act so big and so important. That's what's wrong, even before we start on the point that most of them are complete rubbish as critics. I say it again, they are nothing.

It's the writing, guys. That's all there is. ALL there is.

I thought most people in that thread were complimentary, Pin. And I do see what you're getting at - please don't patronise me - but you guys are both Scouts, aren't you? If you think the attitude of Scouts is wrong, why not talk to them instead of posting on the PS of an ex-Scout? You have a Yahoo group. If their attitudes are wrong, talk to them, not me. It makes no difference if I agree with you or not, because I'm in no position to influence them. As far as Langsandy goes, is it too much work for one of us to pop over to Langsandy's PS and offer to put it through PR ourselves and then remove our names afterwards? That way, the EG gets a great Entry, Langsandy contributes again and everyone wins.

Should we have to? Of course not. But if you want a top-down change, isn't that how it works? You lead by example, you encourage the sort of Entries you want to see, and it all drips down so that Entries like Langsandy's become the norm rather than the exception? You have to work hard, though, I don't think it changes overnight.

What you guys are doing is great - I've always maintained, as most Subs would, that I'd rather put in all the ML and tweak the grammar and spelling here and there than lose an Entry because the author feels intimidated. I'm open to new ideas, new styles of writing (I don't write narratives or first persons well myself - you should see some of my efforts - but I don't ever discount them on that basis), pushing of the boundaries. I know the writing comes first and that's what I've sought to encourage, but so many people get disillusioned because they spend time working on an Entry that attracts no comments. The crit *is* important to me, particularly for new Researchers and those who contribute only occasionally - if I'd just joined and found that no one had bothered to comment on my first bit writing, I'd give up after a few days.

I'm all for changing the focus of PR to allow for different writing styles and a less Scout-centric reviewing system - something I hope my initiative will help to introduce, a wider spectrum of views and more leeway given in terms of the Guidelines. Your last post, Pin, seems to call for an abandonment of the whole PR and Scouting system in favour of a completely unedited Guide, and I don't agree with that at all.

I think the point that Pin was making is that Peer Review, the volunteer schemes, and the Edited Guide itself, are nothing without the writing. There isn't anything unless writers choose to create it. Scouts and Peer Review are servants of this writing, and yet they ("we", as you justly point out ) make ourselves out to be much more that we deserve.

I am planning on talking to my fellow scouts about these issues. It's one of the reasons I volunteered. I doubt that will make me any friends in the scouts, but oh well

Thanks for those words. I can understand that you are continuing to focus on the short term health of the site, and I respect that, but if you ever feel the urge to share some of those sentiments to the site at large, don't fight it I think some folks are beginning to get tired of me saying the same things over and over. I don't really mind having the same argument ten times a week in different places, but I don't know how much good it's doing or if anyone's mind is changing.

Ah. You see, the line between arguing a point vociferously and aggressively is quite narrow...

Truth is, J, I don't have time to start a journal on the theme because of the time involved in having the debate that inevitably ensues. As well as the writing and reviewing I've committed to, I've also got my Post work, Curating and Subbing to consider. I'm going to take a look at my time situation in a few weeks and see if I have enough spare to put a proper commitment into Scouting again; if I do, you can be assured that a journal along those lines will follow...

Don't give up the fight though, J. You're making a lot of sense to a lot of people.