| Pages:
1
2 |
peach
Bon Vivant
Posts: 1428
Registered: 14-11-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The pre-existing articles, in the archive, could just be dumped into the wiki and then tagged to.
So far say sodium, you'd have one page explaining the practical uses of it, e.g. how it can be used for solvent drying, what happens when it's used,
how to increase it's solubility and so on. Or something similar, I mean, a general outline of it's uses to someone at home, then a section titled
"Method of production", with links to the finished articles.
It shouldn't just be all the properties of sodium relisted, that's already in wikipedia.
Standard wikipedia is not all that useful to at home science. Firstly, they have very little explaining the kinds of uses home guys are going to want
things for, they outright say, it's not to be used as a guide and they simply reference the MSDS, which in my opinion, are not all that helpful at
all.
Both pedia and the MSDS, for example, go into ZERO detail about how to actually handle materials or what to do if something gets out of control. Or
the economics and ease of producing one thing by different routes.
Pedia also assumes you have a Sigma account.
Like I've said, the forum is already far ahead of the others in terms of moderation and dealing with the absolute BS. And a number of the people here
have significantly more experience than a lot of people editing the wikis. I'm confident there are a lot of people editing the science wiki's who have
very little actual experience of what they're providing a reference on. They're just rehashing textbooks or MSDS.
The glassware articles are a good example. The condenser article is (or was) a fucking mess, written by someone who couldn't tell the difference
between a coil, a Friedrich, Inland Revenue, Dimroth, Grahams... which has then spilled over into this forum, where I've seen people arguing over
condensers and it's due to that article convincing them they're all the same thing.
[Edited on 11-10-2010 by peach]
|
|
|
quicksilver
International Hazard
Posts: 1820
Registered: 7-9-2005
Location: Inches from the keyboard....
Member Is Offline
Mood: ~-=SWINGS=-~
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by peach  | The pre-existing articles, in the archive, could just be dumped into the wiki and then tagged to.
(snipped for brevity)
Both pedia and the MSDS, for example, go into ZERO detail about how to actually handle materials or what to do if something gets out of control. Or
the economics and ease of producing one thing by different routes.
[Edited on 11-10-2010 by peach] |
Just to play Devil's advocate for a moment; wouldn't that put some pressure to outline the same (handling care & concerns, etc) on an awful lot of
other materials - opening up a huge amount of "back-log editing"?
Don't get me wrong here; I think it's a very useful, ethical, & needed thing. It just seems like seriously long-term agenda.
|
|
|
peach
Bon Vivant
Posts: 1428
Registered: 14-11-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
You're thinking too perfect.
The goal wouldn't be to provide THE source of information straight off, it'd just be to start condensing threads and work forwards, as opposed to
reverse editing every single discussion of potentially harmful suggestions.
The latter is a pedia type idea, perfection. Unfortunately, they fail, DRASTICALLY, on the perfection when it comes to the real world at home
experimenter or the real world health and safety. E.g. "Here's an MSDS, look at that", and that is very little help. E.g. none of the
reactive gas MSDS I've seen have mentioned that they can be knocked out of the air with a fine mist of water. And, again, they have ZERO, information
on compatibility and the other real world problems. Beyond, "this is an oxidizer", or "drink milk, seek medical help".
Great, so I know what dripping sulphuric on salt will do, now how do I actually do that at home? What matters and what doesn't? Is it okay to reverse
fill a propane tank given the pressures stated in the MSDS?
That kind of bothers me about pedia. They're supposed to be an encyclopedia for the people, yet the material is geared towards someone working in a
university lab. That kind of person will also have a free, universal, journal account, and won't need to read Wikipedia (like I did at university).
And, they poo poo'ed my idea of having a theory / practical linking method. So what's the point? The target audience don't need it. Try using
Wikipedia anywhere in a university paper and you'll get told off or laugh at.
It's like going to a homebrew fair with a piece of semi-broken professional gear. They're trying to be an ultimate reference, yet are entirely
unacceptable in universities and straight out say they're not a guide for at homers. So what does that make them? An unquotable, not very helpful,
source of links?
Pedia also fails at a lot of other points, as much as I dislike saying it.
MSDS defeat their own point to me a lot of the time. Someone trying to put out a fire doesn't give a shit about most of the stuff on there. The
majority of the data seems more related to designing a process than dealing with a problem that's already started. E.g. there's a big cloud of a base
or acid gas heading towards lots of people. What do you do? Give them all respirators with acid gas cartridges? Throw them through the wall of rubble?
I had this idea when I started making those vacuum pump posts. First of all, find something people KEEP asking about. Then, it doesn't matter if I
make one or two mistakes. What matters is cover most of what people want to know and then list what seems like a good idea but doesn't work, so other
people won't have to think about it or repeat it. Then move forwards.
Going back to the sodium example, Len has already covered a good 90% of what needs to be said.
[Edited on 12-10-2010 by peach]
|
|
|
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by peach | | The goal wouldn't be to provide THE source of information straight off, it'd just be to start condensing threads and work forwards, as opposed to
reverse editing every single discussion of potentially harmful suggestions. |
Right. And this can begin right
away at the HCS wiki, to which Polverone originally steered this conversation.
|
|
|
peach
Bon Vivant
Posts: 1428
Registered: 14-11-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I would suggest starting it linked to this site, or hosted on this site, so people only need one login and it's all in one place. And so one of the
owners, who's handy with the real world ban hammer, can step in if need be.
Some of the articles on the HCS are just a photo of a bag of chemicals.
[Edited on 13-10-2010 by peach]
|
|
|
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by peach | | I would suggest starting it linked to this site, or hosted on this site, so people only need one login and it's all in one place. And so one of the
owners, who's handy with the real world ban hammer, can step in if need be. |
Yes, that's what I initially
suggested, and Polverone steered me over to HCS. He's the one that has the ability to do it, and he's declined to do it. Very simple, really.
|
|
|
Polverone
Now celebrating 21 years of madness
Posts: 3186
Registered: 19-5-2002
Location: The Sunny Pacific Northwest
Member Is Offline
Mood: Waiting for spring
|
|
I steered people to the HCS wiki because it is already running and suitable. Imagine that woelen, Magpie, and Nicodem each started their own forums
and started posting there instead of here. I wouldn't be offended. I would however have to make more effort to keep up with what each had to say, and
I imagine that (at least initially) each would have a smaller audience to converse with.
I'm afraid that adding a Sciencemadness wiki would have the same effect. There's not a huge number of people who will spend time on a home science
wiki in the first place, and by starting another I divide audience and attention between the HCS Wiki and the new one. The whole would be less than
the sum of its parts.
I could be wrong, especially if the HCS wiki has limitations that would render it unfit for synthesizing and codifying information gleaned from the
forum here. So far I haven't heard anyone mention such limits. The limitation I've heard so far is that the HCS wiki will require a separate login
from Sciencemadness, but I don't know that a unified login system would necessarily lead to wiki-mania.
PGP Key and corresponding e-mail address
|
|
|
peach
Bon Vivant
Posts: 1428
Registered: 14-11-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Fair enough.
However, I can say, I won't be adding anything to or editing HCS at any point in the foreseeable future.
There is basically no one watching that site, versus the tens of thousands of replies, let alone hits, per subforum on here.
People know the name of Science Madness on the internet. Until seeing the mention of it here, I'd never even heard of HCS. And it seems no one else
has either. HCS is still way down in it's infancy as well in terms of the articles, as I say, some of the articles are just a photo of the chemical.
So it wouldn't be creating a redundant wiki.
Starting a wiki here wouldn't be dividing the efforts, it'd be starting one that already has a huge viewing audience.
[Edited on 13-10-2010 by peach]
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
It will just take time and a "critical mass" of content.
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2 |
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
