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

I had, as is increasingly the case recently, a nasty little spat in PR with somebody who had posted an entry. The entry itself claimed to be about hard scientific fact but was really nothing more than a collection of opinions. There was a lot of scientific reasoning in there, to be certain, but it wasn't particularly well thought-through. It was even subtitled 'The Cynic's View': unfortunately for him what he got in PR was a diehard sceptic's view of a cynic's view.

The sad thing about this argument, and about the entry in general, was that it was posted by an intelligent person who had done a lot for h2g2 and PR in general and probably will continue to do so. He had no doubt become disaffected with what he saw PR becoming, and in so doing was championed by a fully-paid-up (but articulate) member of the Awkward Squad who, from my perspective anyway, has never had much truck with the original ethos of h2g2 and has always tried to refashion it into a vehicle for his own rather pretentious form of writing.

Well, I looked in PR and it is alive and kicking. There are plenty of first rate entries there to comment on and if there are some second-rate ones then they could generally be given a leg-up by constructive and measured criticism. You can read about the Duke of Marlborough, Parrots, the Strawberry Tree, Great Zimbabwe, Mary Queen of Scots...all of them well-written and interesting and above all informative.

So, I'll tell you what: all you cynics go out and champion the highly-subjective, the pretentious, the opinionated and the overwrought. I'll carry on supporting the utterly boring, objective, fact-based, well-written, measured and ultimately informative and worthwhile entries. We'll see which end up being more valued by readers other than the author.

On a whim, after reading the first posting here, I went to your PS as a short cut to PR and came across the thread for A Comprehensive Guide to Men F48874?thread=3974319 Although I'm unable to read the entry because it's apparently been pulled by the Mods, I don't think I'd want to anyway, partly because entries with titles like that are usually either a pale attempt at copying the humour of Douglas Adams, or a stream of schoolboy jokes, or a mixture of both.

But it's the thread itself that persuades me even more than previously that I no longer have any interest in PR, either as a reviewer or a writer. Four pages and a couple of posts of little more than the same people making the same in-jokes and trying to out-funny each other.

No instance, as yet, of anyone calling anyone else 'hunny'

Or references to 'hampsters'.

True, there is always this kind of stuff around but it's 'mostly harmless'. It wasn't that bad, actually: it had more than a few insights into the male psyche. I don't mind that sort of entry once in a while, it helps to leaven the batter somewhat.

But there are all these other really solidly-researched, well-written entries kicking around as well, and they are in the majority right now. Funnily enough I was thinking to myself 'now what was that huge pile of rocks in the middle of Africa called?' the other day and then I read an entry on Great Zimbabwe. Yet neither hide nor hair can be seen of the Jeremiahs of the Scout troop. It's one thing to complain about the slim pickings, but another altogether to turn your nose up at them when they come a-plenty.

I've noticed that trivia follows one particular person around like a magnet. No matter where they post, they have this magical ability to change a serious thread to a load of rubbish. And yes, that person is in that thread.

The entry was hidden due to the bad language as far as I can see. It went beyond what was necessary to make their point. I'm just surprised it's pending, rather than an automatic fail!

Well, I'm not sure who you mean. I can see two people in there that I associate with trivialising conversations.

the language wasn't that bad, really, and the author did point out at the beginning that they were uncertain about how to deal with it so yikesing it is somewhat OTT

I thought it was bad, actually, and you know it's hard to offend me.

Well, it looks like you weren't the only one.

Have a look at my most recent posting here: F48874?thread=3993404&latest=1#p46894480 . I think I've managed to hit upon what h2g2's *primary* (but not only) function ought to be: to inform about the everyday world in a way that is informal but useful and interesting and to be *accessible* anywhere. A sort of electronic Rough Guide. There has been quite a few entries in this vein recently, but not enough.

What I'm certain it *isn't* is a primarily vehicle for opinion and prentious tosh (and that means you, Mick/Pinniped). If you really want over-opinionated content that is tendentious to the point of being indefensible, you can go and read this crap anywhere on the internet. There are, for instance, lots of sites which claim that global warming isn't taking place. Or, in the same spirit, that the Holocaust didn't happen because of supposedly hard scientific fact - Google for 'Prussian Blue' and 'gas chamber' and you'll see what I mean.