Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Handhelds Sci-Fi Software Hardware Technology

BBC's h2g2 Goes Mobile - Again 80

Posted by timothy
from the as-well-it-ought dept.
zaktheduck writes "According to a recent press release, in anticipation of the new movie and the h2g2 website's sixth birthday, the BBC have relaunched the long-shelved h2g2 Mobile service. The new version of the popular community website allows access to the 7000+ and growing edited guide entries from PDAs, and smartphones. H2g2 had a WAP service back in 2001, aptly named "h2g2 on the Move", but was cancelled when the company faced financial trouble and was purchased by the BBC. Here's a copy of the old promotion page for the service."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

BBC's h2g2 Goes Mobile - Again

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 13, 2005 @07:01AM (#12221864)
    h2g2 could have been great, but Wikipedia and e2 have it beat both in size and content quality. 7000 entries is nothing.
  • by Ford Prefect (8777) on Wednesday April 13, 2005 @07:07AM (#12221878) Homepage
    h2g2 could have been great, but Wikipedia and e2 have it beat both in size and content quality. 7000 entries is nothing.

    So should I throw away all my reference books and keep just one encyclopaedia?

  • by Tekgno (321071) on Wednesday April 13, 2005 @07:12AM (#12221893)
    Feel free to educate me but I wasn't aware Wikipedia and e2 had readily available mobile access.
  • Useful for hhgg2xml (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jaffa (7714) on Wednesday April 13, 2005 @07:22AM (#12221928) Homepage
    Interesting. This could be useful for my own hhgg2xml [bleb.org] converts H2G2 articles into a variety of formats, including XML and TomeRaider - which is useful for carrying it around with you on a PDA without network access.

    I'll have to look more closely at this new version to see if it can be parsed more easily.

  • Re:eehm... (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 13, 2005 @08:01AM (#12222104)
    Wiki actually covers the "Harmless" entry at the bottom.

    Actually, I believe Douglas Adams would have really liked what the Wiki has become. His books were meant to be funny, but in no way were they an indication that he did not have a very intelligent and serious side. This would be evident to anyone who had ever read anything he wrote that wasn't fiction.
  • Re:eehm... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by l*barbs (872527) <lukeNO@SPAMoxwebs.co.uk> on Wednesday April 13, 2005 @08:38AM (#12222256) Homepage
    As far as I know douglas had invisaged an encyclopedia that anyone could contribute to thus making it accuurate and up-to-date. Both wikie and h2g2 sprung from this idea. Eath my have been considered "Harmless" to begin with, but if HHG2G had been 'open-source' this would have been ammended by some carbon-based ape decendent!
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 13, 2005 @08:52AM (#12222324)
    Wikitravel is probably closer to The HHGG than Wikipedia, as it's supposed to contain useful stuff about travelling. It's even got a Hitchhiking page! Quote from that page: "Always stay happy - even if people react nastily." On the Mobile access thing: Most of the world doesn't have mobile phone masts... And where will you recharge your phone in Eastern Siberia? At the moment nothing beats a good paper guide book for most of the world (especially if you need to start a camp fire).
  • by the right sock (160156) on Wednesday April 13, 2005 @10:20AM (#12222920)
    mobile.answers.com

    Answers.com queries wikipedia. I don't know if you get full article text, but it's great for quick lookups.

  • envisioned? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 13, 2005 @12:14PM (#12224072)
    Adams adapted already existing models of books with poorly-paid stringers to the HHG2G. He didn't invent it. Adams himself mentioned the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to Europe as his inspiration.

    Unlike Wikipedia, the HHG was edited by professionals. The lowest-level of professional, to be sure, but people who were paid at least slightly for doing it. And it was edited (poorly) before it was published.

    On a more practical note, the HHG seemed to have more specific info than Wikipedia, probably because the HHG is more geared toward travel. It's the difference between looking up the Louvre in an encyclopedia and Fodor's.

Forty two.

Working...