ExperiWiki - A new idea!!

[mooeypoo]

Hi guys, I add this here because this is relevant to all scientific aspects.. hope I'm in the right place.

 

I had an idea: How about creating a site 'wikistyle' (or the likes) that contains simple and advanced scientific experiments anyone can do. We can have easy experiments meant for kids, or more advanced experience for the purpose of understanding a subject (woelen has a GREAT site with experiments he made!! go woelen), or explaining past-experiments for everyone to learn and try for themselves some of the ways scientists made new discoveries.

 

I was thinking (and this is just a basic thought, you guys are more than welcomed to add/change/suggest things) of a general structure, something like this:

 

1. Simple Experiments with Household Items
   Experiments you can do with either chemistry, engineering, physics or whatever, and will be devided to "fit-for-kids" or not, and "for-the-lamens" and such, or "for the experienced experimentor" for more sophisticated experiments.
   
2. Experiments after well known past discoveries
   This can be used to explain how discoveries were made. For instance, in this section we can have a "how to build a simple telescope", and in this section we can also explain that Galileo Galilei, using the same type of telescope, found moons around Jupiter and used that to claim that not all revolves around the earth, and start his famous theories.
   
3. Advanced Experiments
   These will be for people who don't fully understand, or believe, one thing or another, OR for users who actually experimented something (woelen, you rock, man) and want to share their results. For instance, woelen's experiment with lightning-hitting-water helped me greatly to understand how the phenomena can happen, and such.

OBVIOUSLY we will add a warning section to each experiment, and we can also explain what stands behind those experiments, the history behind discoveries made by those and such. It can be physics, astronomy, engineering, chemistry -- the works! I've seen many people experimenting with really cool stuff in the forums, but it's not bundled up and if you are looking for a cool experiment or a cool thing to build, you have to spend time looking for a SPECIFIC subject.

 

This site can also have a search that allows parents (or geeks like me) to search by "amount of time needed", or "materials needed" or "difficulty level" or by subject; like, if, say, oh, I dont understand how lightnings WORK, I go to lightnings, and see woelen's experiment and the coin drop and suddently i get it.... (yes, I just re-visited the thread where woelen shares his lightning experiment, and the pictures rock, and i finally understood lightning-in-water, and i am in awe. I had to praise a bit, even if only to prove to everyone that I can - really! - say a good word, every now and then )

 

 

 

What do you guys think? Can we do this? Do you think it will be worthwhile to take the effort? You think people would be interrested in such a thing, or am I the only one?

 

I'd love to hear responses on the matter!!

 

~moo

[timo]

*points finger at WiSci*

 

That´s a much better use for WiSci than writing articles about Astronomy dating back to the ancient ages of the Inca or the SI-unit Gramm. Mainly because there´s the hope that people will write about stuff they have some knowledge about (like having performed that actual experiment).

[mooeypoo]

WiSci is supposed to be DEFINITIONS...

 

I'm talking about "How To Conduct Experiments". Maybe the idea for WIKISTYLE is not that good, btw, in light of the contents. It should be based on categories/search in a permanent Database Style (steady recurring fields like "materials", "difficulty", "ammount of time", and so on).

 

WiSci, which is a great site aswell, as much as I am quite bad in contributing to it, is not what I mean.

 

~moo

[timo]

WiSci is supposed to be DEFINITIONS...

Which was a stupid idea from the very beginning on. If I want to look up definition, I take a dictionary. Perhaps an online-dictionary like ... well ... you can guess it (hint: The one that all not completely crappy articles are copied-pasted from).

 

I'm talking about "How To Conduct Experiments".

I do understand that. My point was not "that would fit good to WiSci" but rather "thart would at least be a non-redundant use for the WiSci infrastructure".

 

WiSci, which is a great site aswell, as much as I am quite bad in contributing to it, is not what I mean.

WiSci is, taking out the biology articles which I cannot judge, a junkyard at best. The best thing WiSci ever brought up so far is that letter about some creationist video. While I dislike the idea of the letter, dislike the "we enlightened scientists step down from our high throne to point out your mistakes"-attitude coupled to the fact that all writers are pupils and also have some doubts about actual content, it is at least something original and in theory a great team-project. The letter is "almost finished" for several weeks now, I think. You are not worse in contributing to WiSci than anyone else - probably even better because you at least try to write something instead of copying articles about quantum field theory from wikipedia and asking someone (in the sense of "anyone, please") to please adjust it to the standards of WiSci.

 

But let´s even assume WiSci was an ok site: Why not just create pages like you´d expect them to be in a suitable namespace of WiSci? You can still copy&paste them somewhere else if that project grows so much much that the wikipedia software can´t handle it anymore .

 

As a general comment, which I am absolutely serious about and what you should see as a friendly advice (as opposed to above rantish style...): SFN has quite a record of abandoned projects. Especially on the internet, the main reason for projects to die off is setting non-tiny goals and making great plans of how it should be/work. Bashing WiSci once more: I am pretty sure that the amount of thoughts that went into the style guidelines, definition of a scientific point of view and arrangement of the namespaces by far exceeds the amount of thoughts put into the scientific articles. Don´t plan. Do.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Heh... I understand what you're saying. I was thinking about using WiSci for something similar to mooeypoo's idea as well.

[ecoli]

That's harsh, Athiest.

[Klaynos]

That's harsh, Athiest.

 

Sometimes you need to be harsh...

 

Surely there's no reason why the 2 uses of wisci can't run concurrently on the sake mediawiki install.... Just with some clever categarising...

[woelen]

I like the idea of Mooeypoo very much, and that is why I have set up a fairly large site already about experiments and all practical things which are involved with it (such as safety, obtaining the needed materials).

 

A project like ExperiWiki would be really great, but I have to admit that Atheist has a very important point. Such a project easily dies after the initial enthousiastic start. The amount of work is very large and people really need to be persistent on that.

 

Just to give you an impression about my own website:

 

Initial idea: Dec. 2004

Setup of main format, layout: Jan 2005.

Doing experiments, making pictures, writing descriptions: Feb. 2005 - Jun 2005.

Initial launch of website: Jun. 2005

 

At the initial launch there were appr. 10 experiments with pictures, there was info on most elements, the site already had a fairly finished look. So, I have been busy HALF A YEAR before I first put it on the Internet. I am a real passionate, so I spent that time with great pleasure, but I can imagine that many people are not that passionate, and then things become difficult. Such a site MUST have a fair amount of content, before it is published. An empty shell does not work, is not inviting and only is disappointing.

 

My site was fairly complete when it started, and the effect of that was that I had more than 1000 hits per day, only a month after its release. Now, one year later, the number of hits still is around 1000 per day and new experiments are added every now and then (now I want to emphasize more on physics, which now still is blocked, but when accessible it will have a fairly complete section, just as the chemistry section one year ago).

 

So, if an initiative like ExperiWiki is started, then think twice about the initial startup. But I want to tell you, Mooeypoo, that if such an initiative is started, you get my blessings, and more than that . I'm willing to supply materials for that site (e.g. pictures of elements, experiments, etc.). I, however, have no time to really work on the layout and actual publishing, because I need that time for my own website.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Layout and publishing is less of a problem because we'd use existing software.

[mooeypoo]

And if many people do it, you have a lot more info coming in than if only one person publishes his own experiments.

 

Plus, I was also thinking about a way to get science closer to both young kids and adult lamens in a fun way - so if you have a bit of time, and you want to see or create something cool, you can look up some easy to do experiment with day-to-day items and get your brains working while having fun..

 

I am not sure wikistyle is the best way, though, after thinking about it. Wiki is more to people who know what they are looking for - the SEARCH for definitions, for instance. We need something that allows people to look up "fit for 12 year olds" and find all the experiments that fit the criteria, or "chemistery" in subject, and "takes 20 minutes" in another criteria, and find all the experiments that fit.. I am not sure wiki can do that..

 

~moo

[Dak]

You could categorise, or write them in the wiki and have an html portal page for linkage.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Although letting people edit experiment articles may not be wise.

[mooeypoo]

It seems to me that we're kind of trying forcefully to make the idea fit wiki, while it probably doesn't.

 

Do you think we can make a DB-oriented site for this idea?

 

~moo

[ecoli]

I wonder if this could work for protocols in biology and chem.

 

I'm actually planning an experiment with a species of bacteria I've never worked for, and it would so cool if there were existing resources that published protocols for free.

 

As it is, I'm having a hard time trying to understand the greek written in science papers.

 

Even papers aren't specific enough for using them to write a new experimental procedure, and a lot of guess work and repitition is going to go into making the experiment work right.

 

Such a resource would be gold.

[mooeypoo]

It sounds like it would be a gold addition to the site in any case, seeing how those build the basis for experiments (if i understand correctly).

 

It can be added as another section.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

It would be easy enough to make a "Submit an Experiment" page, have the resident experts take a quick look at it for sanity, then put it on a public page.

[mooeypoo]

Yeah, we wouldn't want an experiment on how to build an atom bomb...

 

 

 

that would be stealing from all these other sites about this

 

 

 

but seriously - yeah, there shouldn't be a free-posting mentality on that kind of site, but an approval method.. can that be done in wiki? or should we find another method?

 

~moo

[SmallIsPower]

Actually, Cap't, it would be even easier than that, because some of Wikis existing entires could be kept, and linked to from Wiki and ExperWiki.

[mooeypoo]

Okay, I have a practical question.

 

I am a PHP/mySQL programmer. Though I don't have all the time in the world, I am willing to put effort into building a new engine using PHP and mySQL to power up a site that allows easy posting of experiments from users, sifting and approving those experiments and showing them in a comfortable way that allows searching.

 

From what I can see, wiki style is not the right style for such a project, since it requires a different set of thinking. But if I do this, I will require - obviously - help. Mainly in styling and building the idea of a site, maintaining the data in it, and having people approving and adding experiments.

 

Do you think we can do this, or do you think we need to stick to wiki? Can wiki (more than save the time of programming a new engine) FIT the goal of such site can give us, or should we build a new engine?

 

BTW, I've done things like this before - programmed a large DB-Oriented Specific-Field search site with approval systems, comment section and such. It takes some effort, but it's not the end of the world, specifically if I have conceptual help.

 

What do you guys think? Can we make this project? Enough people want this?

~moo

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I'd look for existing software before jumping in and writing a completely new system

[timo]

It would be easy enough to make a "Submit an Experiment" page, have the resident experts take a quick look at it for sanity, then put it on a public page.

There´s a much easier way to check the sanity of experiments: Make it a demand that the person submitting the experiment actually did the experiment before. Just add the lab report and a results report.

Rather than a collection of great ideas what one COULD do, I think a place for people to publish the results of their experiments they HAVE DONE causes a lot less headaches and bad content.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Yes, indeed. Although that limits us some, it would add sanity.

[mooeypoo]

I'd look for existing software before jumping in and writing a completely new system

 

I did, and failed (again this is not the first system I'd do) but do you guys know an existing system that allows customized database fields?

 

I'll look it up.. hmmmm... now that "google" became an official verb, i can tell you guys I am going to google it, and still stick with proper english

 

~moo

[mooeypoo]

btw, we can just say that "regular users" can only add experiments they've done, and experts can add all experiments, including ones that are only in theory.

 

Adding a User Points system, say, to grade the quality of a user so that he may end up helping us in the process, may end up to be helpful, no?

 

~moo