WiSci discussion thread

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Really I'm not sure what we can do to spark interest again. We could possibly use WiSci as a repository for things like articles on Intelligent Design (to refer to when debating an IDiot) and evolution, etc. That would attract more interest, as it would relate to the forum.

[RyanJ]

Really I'm not sure what we can do to spark interest again. We could possibly use WiSci as a repository for things like articles on Intelligent Design (to refer to when debating an IDiot) and evolution, etc. That would attract more interest, as it would relate to the forum.

 

Definaty would be a good place to make "how to's" and articles and the like - could be a good use

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[timo]

I´m actually planning to use it as a repository for things that I expect to be repeatedly posting so that I can simply put a link there and maybe tune for the current situation when a topic appears a 2nd time. This is especially interesting for stuff including a lot of equations.

Sadly, last time I had a post which I thought might be a good idea putting on WiSci (the question was what the nabla operator in an above post meant) I had deleted my cookies, forgotten my PW and the mail with the new PW took too long to arrive... I still say you should allow edits by unregistered users, btw.

[Klaynos]

I've been meaning to do something similar Atheist, I unfortunatly havn't had the time recently though

[vincentsapon]

I prefer powerpoint slides with funny drawings. That is what I try to make in my spare time. Hopefully one day I will be able to use some of them when teaching.

 

http://www.vincentsapone.com/science/lowpressuresystem.ppt

http://www.vincentsapone.com/science/estimatinglightning.ppt

http://www.vincentsapone.com/science/gravity.ppt

http://www.vincentsapone.com/science/universecalendar.ppt

http://www.vincentsapone.com/science/kinematic2.ppt

 

Vinnie

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Thanks for being relevant.

[vincentsapon]

How was that not relevant? You wanted suggestions, right?

 

No need to be testy.

 

I was suggesting incorporating some powerpoint articles pages. Something similar to those that I make though you may wish to chop the humor and be dry, boring and monotonous---like a Wiki-entry looks. That's not my style, however.

 

At least Wiki can't claim to have powerpoint science articles//exlanation that and presumably science educators would love such a resource. After all, still not clear why you are making a Wiki2 anyways.I thinking making your own wiki is a new fad or something. I don't see that significant a difference and such a feature would at least set it apart.

 

Vinnie

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

How was that not relevant? You wanted suggestions, right?

You didn't present it directly as one.

 

I was suggesting incorporating some powerpoint articles pages. Something similar to those that I make though you may wish to chop the humor and be dry, boring and monotonous---like a Wiki-entry looks. That's not my style, however.

PowerPoint == bad. PowerPoints cannot hold in nearly as much information, and they're designed for presentations. That means they're designed to hold outlines and figures, while the speaker elaborates on everything from there. Having a PowerPoint instead of an article - and trying to achieve the same level of detail like that - would be pointless. Besides, editing PowerPoints wiki-style would be a PITA.

 

And PowerPoint is a proprietary format.

 

At least Wiki can't claim to have powerpoint science articles//exlanation that and presumably science educators would love such a resource.

Alternately, we could just make "outline" pages that contain the basics on a topic, with the meat of it in another page.

 

After all, still not clear why you are making a Wiki2 anyways.I thinking making your own wiki is a new fad or something. I don't see that significant a difference and such a feature would at least set it apart.

We started with many good, new ideas, but we haven't had enough participation to be able to use them.

[Xerxes]

I just noticed this thread. I really enjoyed contributing to WiSci (where I was ben, by the way), and would love to see it "re-born".

 

Here's what I think should be done. Delete all, but all, imported articles, and give contributors free reign.

 

Let all visitors contribute. If registration is deemed desirable, let it be really easy: register then edit.

 

I am quite willing to re-enter the "fray", but you get to feel sort of foolish talking to youself. Anyone else out there willing to give it another go? It's such a good idea. And I still have a bit of mileage left in me.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I think there's much more potential in WiSci besides general-purpose articles. We could get into more interesting things like covering, in-depth, common questions we see here on SFN, or something.

 

An encyclopedia just might not be the best way to make use of it, while still making it a valuable resource.

[timo]

I think the idea of creating a scientific wiki is pretty much dead and I give it neither much chance, nor do I see much point in trying to revive it in the way it was supposed to be. Other than that, I think you have a free hand to pretty much do anything you want there at the moment - except for oviously unvanted stuff like illegal activities or abusing it as a cheap data storage for your private use (it´s just what I think, not the opinion of the people in charge of WiSci - I don´t even really know who that is). So if you see a way to put it to good use, just do it - and perhaps check back with the SFN admins in case you are really starting to invest a huge amount of time.

 

EDIT: Wow, more than 10 minutes to type that few sentences.

[CPL.Luke]

the wisci in its current incarnate is probably pretty dead, but if we talked to other forums about joining in then it could help, maybe even send some emails out to various professors asking if they wanted to contribute their course notes etc.

 

on the other hand however is the fact that MIT now runs a pretty top notch open courseware project complete with course notes and the like, so maybe there isn't any need any more.

[Heretic]

I would offer information but what I've gathered is relatively diverse and rarely complete.

 

I can, however, offer you all my knowledge on the workings of the ear, hearing and most inner ear functions as an expert. That's really the only topic my field covers. I truly feel I lack the knowledge to inform others on any other topic.

[Rexus]

ok ok ok. A quick question...Why is it called WiSci?

 

Are you 12 for real? >.< All 12-year olds I know are learning how to drink their chocolate milx out of a cardboard box using a straw, so you must be real special >.>

 

On-topic: I don't want to sound like a jerk (take 3 in this topic), but why not just expand on wikipedia science fields?

[Rexus]

on the other hand however is the fact that MIT now runs a pretty top notch open courseware project complete with course notes and the like, so maybe there isn't any need any more.

 

Is there a link to this? Thanks in advance.

[Dak]

idea

 

about having an encyclopedia that caters for multiple levels of people (beginner, expert, etc)

 

a pretty obvious idea imo, but not one that i've seen implimented anywhere...

 

feel free to edit the example to improve it if you want

 

other than that, remember that any FAQ's, reccuring threads, etc can be ditched on wisci.

[timo]

...other than that, remember that any FAQ's, reccuring threads, etc can be ditched on wisci.

Yes, I could think of quite a few of those (article about the twins paradoxon, a replacement for the "Lorentz Transformations" sticky in the relativity section, something clearing up the ambiguity of the term "mass", ...). In addition to that WiSci seems appropriate for replies to threads like http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=27343 which seem to call for a wider explanation than those usually given in a forum reply (we did have an article about redshift, although the cosmological redshift section wasn't written, yet).

 

Any chance that WiSci will come back?

 

EDIT: Sidenote: The table "site navigation" on the left side on the main page links to two non-existing sites: tfn and originsdebate.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I could re-install MediaWiki somewhere if blike points the domain in the right place. Not too much work, really.

 

If you think you'll use it, I'll set it back up. I'll poke blike sometime to change the DNS settings.

[timo]

Thx for the offer. Like I said, I liked the opportunity to have a wiki in the backhand, here. But as long as I am the only one wanting it back (and potentially using it), you don't need to set it up atm.

[Dak]

yeah, same goes. i'd be interested, but with only two people a wiki wouldn't be too great.

[Xerxes]

Make that three.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I'll check with blike.