# Why hasn't H2G2 been nearly as successful as Wikipedia?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-h2g2-been-nearly-as-successful-as-wikipedia/576132
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [March 27, 2011, 9:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-h2g2-been-nearly-as-successful-as-wikipedia/576132 "2011-03-27T09:37:46Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)
#### Post date: [March 27, 2011, 9:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-h2g2-been-nearly-as-successful-as-wikipedia/576132/1 "2011-03-27T09:37:46Z")
H2G2 being the [“real-life” _Hitch-Hiker’s Guide To The Galaxy_](http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/) started by Douglas Adams in 1999 (two years before Wikipedia), in case you weren’t aware of the abbreviation.
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.
Theories, speculation, insights from anyone?
---
### Author:  [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)
#### Post date: [March 27, 2011, 10:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-h2g2-been-nearly-as-successful-as-wikipedia/576132/2 "2011-03-27T10:14:43Z")
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](http://everything2.com/) which actually has some useful articles sometimes.
---
### Author:  [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)
#### Post date: [March 27, 2011, 12:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-h2g2-been-nearly-as-successful-as-wikipedia/576132/3 "2011-03-27T12:07:45Z")
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.
---
### Author:  [@BDoors](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BDoors)
#### Post date: [March 27, 2011, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-h2g2-been-nearly-as-successful-as-wikipedia/576132/4 "2011-03-27T12:13:25Z")
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.
---
### Author:  [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)
#### Post date: [March 27, 2011, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-h2g2-been-nearly-as-successful-as-wikipedia/576132/5 "2011-03-27T12:39:11Z")
1. 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.
2. Anti-Geek: What H2G2 is named after a science fiction book? A _British_ science fiction book. Fuck you geeks!
3. 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.
---
### Author:  [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)
#### Post date: [March 27, 2011, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-h2g2-been-nearly-as-successful-as-wikipedia/576132/6 "2011-03-27T12:47:33Z")
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.
---
### Author:  [@Renee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renee)
#### Post date: [March 27, 2011, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-h2g2-been-nearly-as-successful-as-wikipedia/576132/7 "2011-03-27T13:19:01Z")
This is the first I’ve ever heard of it. I hate the name, it’s terribly clunky. But it does look interesting; I’ll check it out.
---
### Author:  [@Lantern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lantern)
#### Post date: [March 27, 2011, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-h2g2-been-nearly-as-successful-as-wikipedia/576132/8 "2011-03-27T13:40:39Z")
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?
---
### Author:  [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)
#### Post date: [March 27, 2011, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-h2g2-been-nearly-as-successful-as-wikipedia/576132/9 "2011-03-27T14:51:25Z")
> [@Rune](#):
>
> It is useless…
> [@BDoors](#):
>
> It is fairly useless…
_Mostly_ useless.
---
### Author:  [@zoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zoid)
#### Post date: [March 27, 2011, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-h2g2-been-nearly-as-successful-as-wikipedia/576132/10 "2011-03-27T15:08:15Z")
> [@Rune](#):
>
> 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](http://everything2.com/) which actually has some useful articles sometimes.
(bolding mine)
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.
---
### Author:  [@zoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zoid)
#### Post date: [March 27, 2011, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-h2g2-been-nearly-as-successful-as-wikipedia/576132/11 "2011-03-27T15:09:52Z")
Just for an experiment I googled H2G2.
First 2 hits were from the site itself.
The third? Ayup - Wikipedia.
---
### Author:  [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)
#### Post date: [March 27, 2011, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-h2g2-been-nearly-as-successful-as-wikipedia/576132/12 "2011-03-27T15:12:12Z")
> [@zoid](#):
>
> (bolding mine)
>
> 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.
Thats kinda circular. If people used it more, it would be higher in Google results. So your blaming its lack of success on its lack of success.
---
### Author:  [@zoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zoid)
#### Post date: [March 27, 2011, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-h2g2-been-nearly-as-successful-as-wikipedia/576132/13 "2011-03-27T15:41:54Z")
> [@Simplicio](#):
>
> Thats kinda circular. If people used it more, it would be higher in Google results. So your blaming its lack of success on its lack of success.
Which is in fact exactly how it works
---
### Author:  [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)
#### Post date: [March 27, 2011, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-h2g2-been-nearly-as-successful-as-wikipedia/576132/14 "2011-03-27T15:44:24Z")
Yeah. Welcome to the internet.
---
### Author:  [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)
#### Post date: [March 27, 2011, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-h2g2-been-nearly-as-successful-as-wikipedia/576132/15 "2011-03-27T18:30:43Z")
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.
---
### Author:  [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)
#### Post date: [March 27, 2011, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-h2g2-been-nearly-as-successful-as-wikipedia/576132/16 "2011-03-27T19:24:22Z")
Because it sucks, the way explosions don’t.
---
### Author:  [@ramel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ramel)
#### Post date: [March 28, 2011, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-h2g2-been-nearly-as-successful-as-wikipedia/576132/17 "2011-03-28T03:52:13Z")
I love H2G2. It was the first website I ever signed up to. I haven’t used it much since 2006, but it saddened me to hear it was being cut.
There are some great people there, it was a really fun place with a great sense of community.
---
### Author:  [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)
#### Post date: [March 28, 2011, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-h2g2-been-nearly-as-successful-as-wikipedia/576132/18 "2011-03-28T08:05:32Z")
It’s all well and good to describe it as “Useless” or say “It Sucks”, but some supporting reasons would make for a much more interesting discussion…
---
### Author:  [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)
#### Post date: [March 28, 2011, 8:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-h2g2-been-nearly-as-successful-as-wikipedia/576132/19 "2011-03-28T08:48:01Z")
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.
---
### Author:  [@bahimes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bahimes)
#### Post date: [March 28, 2011, 9:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-h2g2-been-nearly-as-successful-as-wikipedia/576132/20 "2011-03-28T09:08:50Z")
The H2G2 portion of the BBC’s website is very slow to load and I searched for “42”.
That is not the Hitchhikers’ Guide to the Universe!
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-h2g2-been-nearly-as-successful-as-wikipedia/576132.md?page=2)