Talk:h2g2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 
WikiProject BBC (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal. WikiProject icon
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Websites / Computing   
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
 

: If you are a h2g2 Researcher wanting to become a Wikipedian, please take a look at our guide for h2g2 Researchers.



Untitled[edit]

From the brief intro I read for H2G2, it sounds like it gives authors the ability to create a fictional future by writing an encyclopedia. That sounds like fun. I'd love to set something up like that, where users can post about future events and technologies. I can't provide such computers for that.

Nah. I imagine you're thinking of Book of the Future, another site running on the same dna software as h2g2, but with a different ethos and purpose. If you have an account on any dna community, you can post on any of the others, and internal style links do work between them (i.e., you don't need the full url, only the last part, to create a link), but they are different sites. A full listing is available at this dna hub page.
TRiG 00:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

For those who are interested, I have posted a reply to the H2G2 article/discussion about Wikipedia here --Eloquence 16:48 Jan 6, 2003 (UTC)

That's an unstable link. A link to a h2g2 conversation which ends in latest=1 simply shows you the last page of the conversation (with 20 posts to a page). If many more posts get added to that conversation the link will point to somewhere else. (This is, admittedly, unlikely to happen. It's a Peer Review conversation for an article which has now been accepted into the Edited Guide, so there's little more to say about it. But the principle remains.) You're better off to mess about with the skip and show fields, so, try this. TRiG.87.232.43.104 16:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


Should the bits in here about various volunteer schemes, clubs, etc link externally to relevant h2g2 pages? GTBacchus

I'm mostly unfussed. I think it'd be worth linking to /volunteers, but maybe not /scouts : /editorial-process, but not /subeditors-style. Other thoughts? -Martin

In a recent Slashdot story, an anonymous user remarked the following:


No, you're not the only one. They have a ridiculous position on word censorship, choosing to st*r most of the letters out if someone might find it offensive. I mean, what the fuck? It's not as if you can't discern what the word actually is.

Also, if the BBC is maintaining media silence on a topic and you post on it, your post will be deleted. This happened recently on a "what music are you listening to?" thread - someone posted that they were listening to something by the Who. And because Pete Townsend was in the news recently as a suspected paedophile, the post got removed - it wasn't even talking about the case! Same with John Leslie a while ago for those rape allegations. *Everything* mentioning his name was removed.

Can a H2G2 regular verify these claims? If they are true, the information should be added to the article. --Eloquence 16:30 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)

Huh. I didn't hear about the Townsend thing, and I'm a regular on that thread. Yes, they star the middle letters out of 'shit', 'fuck', etc, which is kind of juvenile, but whatever. Like Mr Slashdot Anonymous said, there's no question what the word actually is.
Regarding BBC media silence and political issues... I don't have much experience with it. They do have a team of libel lawyers, being the BBC. Duh. Also, being the BBC, they have little experience or comfort with the anarchy of cyberspace. MyRedDice can tell you more about that; he tried to get an entry through on the Nestlé boycott. My hunch - and I've been there over 2 years - is that the post about listening to The Who got reinstated when the actual staff showed up in the morning. Not all moderators (hired censors, usually students) know what they're doing, and they're probably told to err on the side of caution. Their decisions are typically reviewed by h2g2 staff, and can be appealed. -GTBacchus 18:41 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)
Yes, it is true on all counts. I do believe that such censorship has taken its toll on the community. It is quite telling that the most popular conversations tend to be things like "Sentence game: add four words!" rather then anything more serious.



Ok, I did some checking. There's one big 'What Music are you Listening to?' thread, that's been going on for years. The last time someone posted there that they were listening to The Who was over a week ago. See posts #6414 and 6417 on this page. I asked about any postings having been hidden in post #6590, and received an answer in #6593 on this page. Quoting the reply I got:

GTB, it is possible that a post was yikesed for mentioning the Who. The italics contacted the ACEs over the weekend when the allegations about Pete Townshend were first reported, asking us to look out for anything that could be construed as defamation. Quite a few posts were pulled as a result.

Well, if any posts were pulled from the "what music?" thread, they were put back pretty quickly, because there are none missing from the last week. -GTBacchus 21:56 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to add something about moderation once the wiki is a bit more responsive again. --Eloquence 22:11 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)

I added a bit. Does that cover it, do you think? -GTBacchus 07:48 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)
Seems fair enough to me. I don't know if there are other opinions on this matter (perhaps ex-H2G2 users who say they were driven away by heavy handed moderation) and if there are, their opinions should be included as per NPOV. But I don't have enough experience with H2G2 to judge whether this is the case. --Eloquence 09:25 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)
Regarding Nestlé, yes my article on the Nestlé boycott was slapped down fairly heavily, and I was told not to put it back up until I could prove, preferably by paying a lawyer to review it, that:
  • Nothing I said was defamatory
  • Nothing on any website I linked to was defamatory
Unsurprisingly, I gave up at that point, and the entry remains a stub. Regarding people leaving because of moderation - there have been some, certainly. I could try and find quotes and suchlike, perhaps. Martin
Martin, any quotes or additional information would be great. BTW, the coverage of the boycott in our Nestlé article is somewhat brief, so please add any relevant facts. --Eloquence 10:53 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)
There's slightly more under Infant formula, but yeah. -GTBacchus 10:55 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)


I'm suprised no-ones mentioned the current situation with moderation. All posts about Iraq are being hidden, this has caused a lot of outrage, and a petition with quite a few signees. -- Tango

The article says On 17 March 2003, h2g2 issued guidelines for discussions during the 2003 Iraq war, including saying that "Postings and Entries on the subject of the conflict posted to h2g2 will be removed".
If you'd like to add something on the petition and such, please do - I'm not following h2g2 politics much now, so I miss some of the details... ;-) Martin


'Rude words' are acceptable if they are considered to be 'Editorially Justified'. See, for example, The Origins and Common Usage of British Swear-words. But there has now been a filter added, to prevent words of this nature being added to the Guide, either in articles or in conversation forums. This has sparked community outrage. Most of 'em didn't swear anyway, but they don't like being treated like naughty children. (See The h2g2 Profanisaurus for one of the more imaginative responses.)

TRiG.87.232.43.104 16:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll add that the filter has two lists of words it checks. Words on list one are blocked, and postings containing these words cannot be posted. Entries containing these words still stand, but cannot be edited unless the words are removed. (Postings can't be edited anyway.) Words on list two are not blocked, but posts containing these words are automatically referred to the moderators as soon as they're posted. I would guess that Townsend was added to that second list while he was in the news, so any post containing his name would have been automatically hidden until it had been reviewed by a moderator. Nothing sinister. Similarly, names of British political parties are added to that second list at election times.

TRiG (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


I'd like to include a photo or two of an h2g2 meetup - if anyone has a suitable photo they wouldn't mind putting under the GFDL, speak up :)



Should this article be renamed 'h2g2' - ie, with the letters in lower case? Every single reference in the article has the name appearing in that format. I notice also that the h2g2 website itself always uses the lower case in titles, etc. R Lowry 20:32, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's not possible -- Wikipedia articles have to start with an upper case letter.—Eloquence 20:52, Aug 1, 2003 (UTC)
Ah, that's a shame. I don't suppose there's really any way around that. R Lowry 23:08, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)



The Editors list is now out of date (Anna has left), and I'd prefer that my name was removed from the list please. I'm identifiable from my first name alone online, and I'm careful who I tell that I work on h2g2. Can you tweak it so I'm disguised or something? I don't want to identify myself here easily either, but MyRedDice once stayed overnight in my house before I was an Editor, so that should give him a clue.

And as a matter of being perfectly correct, Plain wasn't designed for the digibox users. A bug was about to be fixed that meant that the digibox users couldn't use conversations once they got to a certain amount of postings, so we were trying to sort something out. We happened to find out that Jim was doing the new skin, and asked him to upload it so that it could be used, which is why it's unfinished and unofficial. As it happens, I think the bug reverted again, it's done that a couple of times I think.

I know that the idea of this site is that anyone can do corrections, but I can't bring myself to do that. If the changes aren't going to be welcome, and will be changed back, it seems a bit pointless.

I hope that I've done this right, I nearly posted it in the middle of someone else's comment.

I've temporarily removed the list from the article. With apologies for the inconvenience. R Lowry 19:59, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

If h2g2 has reduced its support staff (ie, the Italics team) from six to two, there obviously isn't much point in bothering with an Italics list anymore. Therefore I've removed it altogether from the above discussion. R Lowry 05:13, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)


I've put the UnderGuide section in with the parts about Peer Review and so forth, rather than Community, because I thought it ought to be nearer the AWW. On the other hand, I'm not sure if it should be considered part of the "Editing Process" - maybe the heading needs changing, or splitting? - IMSoP

Maybe just pluralise? "Editing processes"? Martin 17:37, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Editing Processes[edit]

I just removed this from the article:

The in-house editors make few changes—the most visible of which is appending a "Related BBC links" section to entries that includes a link for readers to search BBCi for other entries on the same subject.

In fact, one of the most frequent jobs of the curators is to remove this section from older Entries. They're put in as references instead now (along with other links: links to h2g2 Edited Entries, the BBC, and External websites can all go in the appropriate place in the text or in the references section, and all links, whether they appear in the text or not, appear in the sidebar, automatically divided into the three sections mentioned (See, for example A653230 The Big Bang.)). And usually the Researcher does it himself. Or the Sub-editor can add it [1].

TRiG.87.232.43.104 22:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


Link[edit]

It seems Anthony DiPierro has removed the link to the introduction for h2g2 Researchers without so much as an edit summary. Personally, I think this was a perfectly valid inclusion, since it's more than likely that a seasoned hootooite coming upon Wikipedia will both think to look up h2g2 and wonder about where the projects differ. I won't revert instantly, in case Anthony makes a decent case for the removal, but I reckon it should stay. - IMSoP 18:42, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps the link should be at the bottom not the top?
Anthony is on a "remove self-references" drive, AFAIK - he's perhaps unaware that italic text that is essentially editorial commentary is normally allowed to self-reference: spoiler warnings and NPOV disputes being examples. Martin 18:46, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings and NPOV disputes are part of the mediawiki namespace. Self-references in the mediawiki namespace are acceptable. Furthermore, neither the spoiler warnings nor the NPOV messages reference Wikipedia by name. They link to Wikipedia namespace, but this can easily be changed in forks by two simple edits to the mediawiki namespace. Anthony DiPierro 18:47, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't see why the distinction between namespaces makes any odds - as far as the reader is concerned, the page simply refers to a relevant piece of meta-information in all three cases. Now, if we were to make some kind of stable, or even paper, version then I'd agree that such editorial comments should be kept to an absolute minimum. But since this is in fact an active project and a website to which people can happily deep link, I think it is very sensible to try and pre-empt users' needs in this way.
Is there a discussion about this I can post to, or should I start one on the Village pump? - IMSoP 19:24, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The point is that self-references make it hard for forks. See Wikipedia:avoid self-references. Anthony DiPierro 19:28, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
OK, I get the point on forking now. I'm still not sure where the best compromise lies in this particular case though - the message is likely to get us more contributors, and thus further our aims, but confuse readers of forks, and thus have negative impact on their aims.
It would be nice if there were some way we could mark text ready for people to remove on forks. Perhaps we should just tell forkers to remove links beginning "Wikipedia:" unless their fork has an equivalent page beginning "<Forkname>:". Then we could just put it as a see-also at the bottom and they could trawl the database easily enough.
Also, do all forks use the MediaWiki software to import their content? 'Cos if they just take the end result, the {{msg}}s will have been transcluded before they have a chance to edit them anyway. - IMSoP 19:46, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Just make it a mediawiki msg. Do all forks use the Mediawiki software? No, but they all have to translate the wiki markup in some way. Unless I guess if they scrape the html, which I would think is rare. Anthony DiPierro 21:44, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It seems a bit hacky to create a page of the form MediaWiki:Editorial comment on article X. And I may be just thinking of problems for their own sake now, but if we do it that way, then how will forks that do use the mediawiki software be any the wiser that it needs changing than if we had just left it in the article in the first place? - IMSoP 03:36, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Well, I agree, of course, that's why I haven't done it. I don't see why this message is so necessary in the first place. The idea is that you don't import the mediawiki namespace, and then you don't show references to nonexistent mediawiki messages. Since the entire message is encapsulated in the message, you know exactly what to remove. It's actually extremely easy to do on an automated basis, unlike trying to parse links to other namespaces and figure out what text applies to that link and needs to be removed. Pretty much an AI-hard problem. Anthony DiPierro 03:45, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I've just realised that an upcoming software feature will allow creation of templates, rather than only fixed-text messages, so we will simply be able to say {{wikipedia-specific|text=yada yada yada}} (or whatever the syntax turns out to be). It's still rather hacky, but less so than a single-use msg. There may even be ways of making use of the template-ness, while we're at it. - IMSoP 09:42, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Sure. Everything2 is another example, I just haven't bothered to remove that one yet. Anthony DiPierro 15:28, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I think the ideal would be markup of the style <Wikipedia-specific>h2g2 readers wishing to contribute... blah blah.</Wikipedia-specific>. In the meantime, why not put the relevant text at the top of the talk page? Martin 21:38, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In my experience, however, people who mirror or fork the entire encyclopedia don't even bother to filter out the Talk, User, and Wikipedia namespace, so concern about including project-specific information seems to be low. -- StephenGilbert [copied from MeatBall:HTwoGTwo]

Right, and some of us do. So concern is not low. Anthony DiPierro 21:42, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Low" doesn't mean "non-existent". If you look at most copies of the Wikipedia database online, they have all the project specific information (talk and user pages, etc) still there. I've noticed that your copy does indeed filter them out, so that's one who does care. That's still a low number. It doesn't mean that self-refences are a good idea, though. Personally, I (along with others) agree with you that self-refences should be avoided in articles.

Also, and this is someone off-topic, but I notice that you have "Copyright (c) 2004 Anthony DiPierro" on your front page. It's not really a big deal, but each contributor still maintains the copyright over his or her Wikipedia contributions, and then licenses it under the GFDL. I'm guessing that everyone hasn't signed their copyrights over to you. ;-) -- Stephen Gilbert

I'm not going to argue with you over the meaning of the word low.
Of course each contributor still maintains the copyright over his or her own contributions (except for contributions made directly to McFly, which are released into the public domain). However, I own the copyright on the resulting derivative work. This is how copyright works. Wikipedia contains no copyright notice, or I would include that copyright notice along with mine. And yes, it's completely off topic. Anthony DiPierro 13:15, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
My understanding is that you own a joint copyright on the resulting derivative work, but this may be UK-specific. Martin 17:59, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
In the US, "The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully." and "The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material." Anthony DiPierro 19:59, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Title[edit]

{wrongtitle|title=h2g2} This template belongs on the article, not the Talk page. I'll insert it there. JamesMLane 23:23, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Skins[edit]

An anon's edit states that Brunel has "black text on white backgrounds". My homepage on h2g2 appears as white text on black background, and I thought that was Brunel. Can anyone familiar with h2g2 offer a clarification? JamesMLane 23:13, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've had a look at my personal space (I use Brunel) and the top bits (which list conversations I've subscribed to, and my messages, is black, with some writing yellow, and some black. However, the actual text of my journal is black text on a white background, and similarly for my introduction.

This seems to apply to the main text of entries themselves, although I think all heading are in red. Here is an example entry [2], in the brunel skin. Silverfish 23:31, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The design was originally supposed to be white text on black, until it was pointed out that all the existing graphics on site would only work against a blue or white background as they were borderless and anti-aliased to the appropriate background. Although the original art assets existing, nobody wanted to pay for the time it would take to re-render all the images to a third background colour (and maintain three different copies of all images, instead of just two).
So, the skin had to cope with white/yellow on black for all auto-generated text, but falling back to black on white for all user-generated text section. Needless to say, it was a nightmare for the HTML coder trying to get it all working in all the various browsers the BBC has to support.

Recent edit[edit]

I stumbled upon this article on this site and I thought I'd give it an update, with the adding of the paragraph about the new h2g2 mobile edition. As a h2g2 researcher myself (U599405 if anyone would like to contact me there) there's been a lot of things going about this recently, so I thought it important to add to this.

See ya,

David Shoare (Dave, also known as Bob, scourge of the universe and purveyor of bad poetry on h2g2)

NPOV[edit]

The talk page had an NPOV embedded in it which appears to be erroneous in the context of an NPOV alert. (It was connected with a discussion now long concluded on referencing.) I have removed the NPOV tag. If this is felt to be incorrect I apologise. --Silver149 6 July 2005 09:49 (UTC)

de-merge h2g2 from BBC[edit]

This is an interesting time. The BBC are making very interesting moves in the area of free content - all of Beethoven available for free download. The initatives to make all of their content and archive available for "re-mixing". However, at the same time they have a stated editorial policy of being the fact-based and trusted, respected, voice of balanced journalism. One can see their dilema!

Suggest that h2g2 contributors and content move to wikepedia - this will free up the BBC lawyers to worry about more important things (like how to prize out rights from ancient performers so we can all enjoy the old comedy shows) while bringing fresh content to wikipedia.

Well, firstly, this seems to be a posting which would be better directed at h2g2 Researchers than at Wikipedians. And secondly, I disagree: h2g2 and Wikipedia are very different in their outlook, approach, style, and community structure; much of the content of h2g2 would be unwelcome in Wikipedia, and you can't just "transplant" a whole community. Although I've been inactive for some time now, I was a regular user of h2g2 both before and after Rupert (the BBC takeover), and, yes, there have always been dilemmas and differences of opinion (I was even a Zaphodista; I guess technically still am), but over time the BBC and the h2g2 community got used to each other, and I see no reason things can't carry on in that spirit of compromise indefinitely. Hell, every community has to compromise on all sorts of key issues, all the time, and I think h2g2's done rather well, in general... - IMSoP 20:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Oh definately, there is no way h2g2's content could ever merge with Wikipedia's. Reason numero uno would be that there is already a wikipedia entry on almost every topic h2g2's edited guide covers. Number two would of course be the different standards and styles, number three would be the community -- there is a heck of alot more to h2g2 than an encyclopedia. In fact, many h2g2 researchers see the encyclopedia as secondary (though they're not vocal about it) to the community.
The two sites are fundamentally different in their stated purposes/functions. Wikipedia's function is to write a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. h2g2's function is to provide a comprehensive guide to Life, the Universe and Everything written by a dedicated community. You could, I suppose, wonder whether if the site (h2g2) were ever to break up with the BBC, whether it would be possible to run a "new" h2g2 site with a more wiki-like format, such as importing all of it's old content into the mediawiki software somehow ... but I doubt that could ever happen, even if people wanted to. --Nerd42 23:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
We shall see212.188.147.34 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC).

Where to go now when h2g2 is down?[edit]

Isn't there some place off-site of h2g2 for members to talk when h2g2 is down? Report problems? It was down a few minutes ago so I looked up this entry to see if it had a link to such a place. Sadly, it does not. I heard once that there was such a site ... but I don't remember where or what exactly ... (by the way, I'm Researcher U203906) --Nerd42 23:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Twas n2g2, "nowhere 2 go 2," which doesn't seem to exist anymore. (I'm U166086) -GTBacchus(talk) 07:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I found it at Yahoo while browsing through h2Jargon. TRiG 00:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

User page template for h2g2 Researchers[edit]

User:Nerd42 has created "a template created for h2g2 Researchers who are also wiki users to add to their User Pages" at Template:H2G2Researcher. I removed this from the article page in an effort to avoid self-references in articles. — Jeff | (talk) | 06:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with avoiding the self-reference, but I think the template could be useful. I suggest to Nerd42 that he add it to Wikipedia:Guide for h2g2 Researchers. (I won't be bold and do it myself because it's Nerd42's creation.) JamesMLane 07:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Ooh!! Didn't know there was such a thing. I originally created the template for Uncyclopedia. --Nerd42 23:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Stats[edit]

Are there any statistics on the number of entries or the growth over time?--Eloquence* 23:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I found this.--Eloquence* 23:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Included quote from h2g2 UpdateForum: Is this acceptable?[edit]

The History revision marked "Added information on Editorial Feedback to the Update section". Have quoted from h2g2 UpdateForum. Am new to Wikipedia, and don't yet know the ropes. Should it be taken out again? TRiG 00:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't see a problem with that TRiG. Stu ’Bout ye! 07:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC) (U816232)

Talking heads[edit]

Should I have put it in

this entry is not signed and doesn't make sense.... if it is referring to something above it should be placed in that section. Vcrs 02:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Acronym problems?[edit]

Why is the acronym h2g2 and not hg2g? It doesn't make sense. Should this be mentioned or acknowledged here in the article at all? Should someone tell the BBC? Or am I just missing some clever inside joke among true fans of the book? .... just curious Vcrs 02:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The title The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy[3] is often abbreviated as "HHGTTG", (as used on fan websites) or "H2G2" (first used by Neil Gaiman as a chapter title in Don't Panic and later by the online guide run by the BBC). - from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy --C Hawke 19:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
h2g2 is meant to be a bit like a chemical formula, I think. 2 h's (Hitch and Hikers) and 2 g's (Guide and Galaxy), gives h2g2. --Tango 14:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see. The 2's could also be read as exponents - H-squared G-squared. HitchHiker's GuideGalaxy. Got it. (In case my question was unclear, I was reading the 2's the way people use "2" in (for example) instant messaging, as a replacement for "to," as in, "to the Galaxy." Thus, since there's only one "to" in the title, the two 2's in the acronym confused me).
Thank you so much for taking time to explain. :-)
Vcrs 23:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This bit is incorrect[edit]

The content of the project is written by visitors to its website and is broadly divided into two parts: a peer-reviewed "Edited Guide", mostly consisting of more thorough articles on traditional encyclopaedic subjects, and an unedited part that includes many more idiosyncratic topics, such as plastic bag bras[2], teaching cats to fetch[3], or using spoons[4].

All articles mentioned here are actually in the Edited Guide. The EG can contain anything which conforms to the Writing Guidelines, which do not contain a requirement for notability. As long as an entry is factual and well written, it can go in. The Unedited Guide contains everything else, including rough drafts of entries in the EG.

I know I could change this myself, but I don't feel like it at the moment.

TRiG (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Martin (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Alexa Rank[edit]

The rank given for H2G2 is misquoted. If you follow the reference given and mouseover the rank (now 64 not 61) you will see this rank is for bbc.co.uk, not specifically H2G2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drown (talkcontribs) 21:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


References[edit]

I have added eight new references, all from newspaper articles found using the Nexis UK archive. I have therefore removed the primary sources tag and replaced it with a 'more citations' (refimprove) tag. Hope you guys don't mind.

AlexAshman (talk) 10:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to be brave and remove the {{refimprove}} tag. The article has ten third-party references now, and I've added links to most of the content that the article claims that h2g2 has.
AlexAshman (talk) 10:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikiprojects[edit]

I've added h2g2 to the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and Websites wikiprojects, as I felt it belonged there. Some editors from those wikiprojects may be interested in helping improve this article too. Deltawk (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent history/current status[edit]

My impression of h2g2 is, admittedly based on the occasional anecdote, that it is a failed competitor to Wikipedia & has seen a corresponding fall-off in activity. However, following the link above & viewing its activity statistics, it appears that h2g2 is still active -- less so than Wikipedia, but on a level much higher than many social media websites. Can anyone provide information on what's been happening there in the last 5-10 years (yes, with verifiable sources), & whether its in a downwards spiral or its simply stabilized at a less active level? -- llywrch (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

"a failed competitor to Wikipedia" is a reasonable impression, given that it is an impression based on occasional anecdote. In fact, what h2g2 actually is is hard to describe. It is far easier to describe it in terms of what it is not - and it is not, and never has been, a competitor to Wikipedia, not least because it predates Wikipedia by almost two years. "a failed competitor to Facebook" is another possible misunderstanding, inasmuch as it has elements of social networking (not least its use of "My Space" as the label for a registered user's home page with their list of interactions), but it's not just that, either.

I'm not sure what you mean by "verifiable sources", as the site itself is a near-complete record of everything that's happened there in the last ten years - certainly conversation postings cannot be edited once posted. h2g2 is not a wiki - things don't disappear.

Current status at time of writing is that the site is undergoing transfer from BBC ownership to the ownership of Not Panicking Ltd., the new owners, a process driven in large part by the efforts of the h2g2 community consortium, a collective of motivated individual users of the site. Whether this constitutes a "downward spiral" or the next step in its evolution remains to be seen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.188.147.34 (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Move from BBC[edit]

H2g2 has now moved from the BBC. The new log in page says 'No researcher left behind'. I have been trying to get into the new site for several weeks now without sucess. One of the 'gurus' said he had passed my problem on, and since then despite several e-mails to the site I still can't get in to up date my contribution. So i hope others have better luck than me. It looks like the contributions I made over several years will never be added too!Betty Butt (talk) 06:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Why not accepted as Source?[edit]

To anyone from h2g2 this is nbb (ACE). Can anyone figure out why Wiki accepts any EG as a reliable source for an entry, but is unwilling to trust h2g2 as a source about itself? The primary/secondary source rules seem a bit odd here - until very recently h2g2 was backed by the bbc. The bbc can be used a source when an entry is done on any of its programs. An annoying bit of hypocrisy Nosebagbear (talk) 15:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Where at Wikipedia is discussion of h2g2 as a source? --P64 (talk) 01:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

There's even one more allusion hidden in the project title...[edit]

I dunno whether Douglas Adams ever thought of that when conceiving it, but it actually does remind one a lot of R2-D2, the Star Wars droid. However, putting this into the article might be considered original research, even though both Adams' novel and Star Wars are in the very same genre: Sci-Fi. -andy 77.190.12.81 (talk) 07:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Needs a trim[edit]

There's a lot of in-universe writing here, isn't there? Everything in the article needs to be sourced to reliable third-party sources, not to the site itself. Also, why the lower-case title? --John (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)