User talk:Trent Toulouse: Difference between revisions
imported>Daniel Mietchen (→Some ideas for contributions: new section) |
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz (→Thanks, and general comments: new section) |
||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
Cheers, --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 19:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC) | Cheers, --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 19:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC) | ||
== Thanks, and general comments == | |||
Thanks for the information on Wikimedia loading. I don't think that necessarily rules out shared hosting, but it may call for a "cloud" intended for computationally intensive applications rather than web loads. Obviously, there's no simple answer. We may have to build benchmarks. | |||
We now have a Charter, which obviously is only a beginning. It's fair to say, I think, that many people here have strongly divergent views on the fringe articles. Recently, I likened homeopathy to a litter box: lots of unpleasant things going in, and a continuing need to clean it up. I suspect some people who support the fringe articles like the challenge of arguing, others have a particular view of neutrality in which such things must be present, and, in some cases, single-issue advocates. | |||
Critical mass is indeed a problem. I know that I have difficulty in getting even nonspecialist readers to do copy/flow editing on articles that I think are important topics in subjects ranging from current and historical military affairs, computing, and health sciences. I'd be interested in any ideas you might have to encourage participation. My personal opinion is fringe, and metadiscussions, eat up a lot of resources. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 05:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:26, 24 September 2010
User talk:Trent Toulouse/Archive
Some ideas for contributions
Hi Trent,
nice to see you here! Since we currently have no direct channel for feedback other than the non-member forum (which is basically not used), I think the commentary provided at RationalWiki is valuable. Indeed, I agree with many of the points of criticism raised there, but my conclusions differ: Rather than abandoning the project or declaring it moribound, I prefer to try to help it get on its own feet and find its own way. In doing so, I keep academic perspectives in mind, and although I was not convinced of the necessity of a Charter at this point, I think the current draft provides (at least theoretically) for a more fertile ground for expertise than pre-Charter policies. Whether the Charter will be adopted, and whether it will make a difference in practice remains to be seen, but even if the whole thing were to come to an end soon, I am confident that the idea of coupling wikis and expertise will live on (possibly even at Wikipedia), while detailed knowledge about Citizendium could probably still help future endeavours in this direction to take off.
If you are interested in contributing to topics other than wikis, perhaps
Psychology [r]: The study of systemic properties of the brain and their relation to behaviour. [e]
Biology [r]: The science of life — of complex, self-organizing, information-processing systems living in the past, present or future. [e]- Brain [r]: The core unit of a central nervous system. [e]
Cognition [r]: The central nervous system's processing of information relevant to interacting with itself and its internal and external environment. [e]- Neuroscience [r]: The study of nervous systems and their components. [e]
- Neuroimaging [r]: A group of techniques used to visualize structure and function of nervous systems, especially the vertebrate brain. [e]
- Dopamine [r]: A monoamine neurotransmitter formed in the brain by the decarboxylation of dopa and essential to the normal functioning of the central nervous system. [e]
- Reward [r]: Add brief definition or description
- Mesolimbic pathway [r]: Add brief definition or description
- Behavior [r]: The actions or reactions of an object or organism, usually in relation to a stimulus or its environment. [e]
- Evolutionary psychology [r]: The comparative study of the nervous system and its relation to behaviour across species. [e]
- Gene regulation [r]: Add brief definition or description
- Complexity theory [r]: Add brief definition or description
Systems biology [r]: The study of biological systems as a whole. [e]- Biology's next microscope: Mathematics [r]: A scientific discussion about the mutual interaction between mathematics and biology. [e]
- McMaster University [r]: Add brief definition or description
- University of New Mexico [r]: Add brief definition or description
and related articles may be good places to start.
Cheers, --Daniel Mietchen 19:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, and general comments
Thanks for the information on Wikimedia loading. I don't think that necessarily rules out shared hosting, but it may call for a "cloud" intended for computationally intensive applications rather than web loads. Obviously, there's no simple answer. We may have to build benchmarks.
We now have a Charter, which obviously is only a beginning. It's fair to say, I think, that many people here have strongly divergent views on the fringe articles. Recently, I likened homeopathy to a litter box: lots of unpleasant things going in, and a continuing need to clean it up. I suspect some people who support the fringe articles like the challenge of arguing, others have a particular view of neutrality in which such things must be present, and, in some cases, single-issue advocates.
Critical mass is indeed a problem. I know that I have difficulty in getting even nonspecialist readers to do copy/flow editing on articles that I think are important topics in subjects ranging from current and historical military affairs, computing, and health sciences. I'd be interested in any ideas you might have to encourage participation. My personal opinion is fringe, and metadiscussions, eat up a lot of resources. Howard C. Berkowitz 05:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)