The BBC (who own H2G2) recently announced massive funding cuts to it for various reasons, and there’s talk that (once again) it might be closed down or sold to someone else (Douglas Adams & Co. sold it to the BBC in 2001 due to funding issues). Which got me wondering why Wikipedia is so incredibly successful (being one of the Top Five English-Language Websites That Aren’t Google Or Microsoft), whilst H2G2- which, from what I’ve seen, is almost a cross between Wikipedia and the SDMB- languishes as an “also-ran” that people are still surprised to discover exists.
I realise the two sites aren’t identical in outlook- Wikipedia is, well, Wikipedia (striving to be a Serious & Worthy Encyclopaedia) and H2G2 is considerably Less Serious & Worthy with an active social aspect to it- but I’m just surprised that, on some level, H2G2 never become Really Big & Important the way Wikipedia did.
It is useless, and it is owned by a state media – which gives it even less creditability than Wikipedia. Also it doesn’t come up on Google search. Probably because people find it useless. And because they rely on volunteer editors, this becomes a self-reinforcing trend. There is also Everything which actually has some useful articles sometimes.
Yea, wikipedia seems to be the serious encyclopedia, and everything2 seems to have the whimscial encyclopedia niche down, and HG2G is pretty much stuck trying to stand in the middle somewhere.
It is fairly useless, but I think the “state media” thing is a red herring. That makes it sound like the BBC is akin to Libyan State TV or Voice of America or something. It isn’t, it really is quite independent.
Anyway, I think that the problem with hg2g is that it is too hard too become a contributor. Its relative failure is evidence that the wiki model, for all its many flaws, is superior, at least when it comes to the initial stage of accumulating a critical mass of articles. Wikipedia is now making small moves toward the “approved editor” model, but I don’t think it would be what it is today without its basically free-for-all ethos.
Branding: Wikipedia is, ya know, like a pedia… those encycla thingies. That sounds researchy. H2G2 sounds like, I dunno, Hidrogen diGoldium or something. I hate chemistry. I’m gonna go to the encycla thingy.
Anti-Geek: What H2G2 is named after a science fiction book? A British science fiction book. Fuck you geeks!
The Hand of Fate: Somtimes some websites sink while others rise, and it’s just a matter of who reads and talks about what. You roll the dice, you take your chances.
People don’t trust it as much after it’s successor blew up the Earth.
I actually think it’s funny that Wikipedia is much closer to the Encyclopedia Galactica than the Hitchhiker’s Guide. In our universe, solid information is worth more than humorous writing style.
Same here; I have never heard of it and I go to their website quite often. So perhaps a lack of promotion? You would think one of the biggest media organizations in the world would have found a better way to cross-promote the website in ten years. State broadcaster is really not an issue; I and many other people trust the BBC quite a lot.
I agree the name is terrible. Was there some legal obstacle to simply calling it the Hitchhiker’s Guide?
There’s your answer.
Google anything (well anything you seriously want info on) and 9 times out of 10 a wikipedia entry will be on the first page.
H2G2 - I’d venture to guess less than 1 in 1000.
The big problem with H2G2 is that not everyone is as talented as Douglas Adams. You’ll see a lot of entries written by people who think they’re wittier than they really are.
How do you prove an absence? Whatever it is that this kind of site needs to be successful, this site didn’t have it. If I knew what “it” was, I’d be Jimmy Wales or Mark Zuckerberg.