CZ:Proposals/Create a page for all notable genes in the human genome: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>David E. Volk
imported>Jitse Niesen
(remove driver)
(10 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{proposal assignment|Edit}}
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #dedaca; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 
:''I suppose it's time that this proposal be official withdrawn.  Archiving the text below in case the proposal ever gets resurrected in the future. [[User:Andrew Su|Andrew Su]] 20:10, 14 July 2008 (CDT) ''
 
 
{{proposal assignment|Dless}}
At first sight, this seems to be something that the relevant workgroups (Biology and Health Sciences) can decide by themselves. However, the proposal may easily create a precedent with wide-ranging implications, for instance on what type of stubs are acceptable, and whether we want a bot write a large number of articles. For that reason I think it's best that the full Editorial Council decides.
At first sight, this seems to be something that the relevant workgroups (Biology and Health Sciences) can decide by themselves. However, the proposal may easily create a precedent with wide-ranging implications, for instance on what type of stubs are acceptable, and whether we want a bot write a large number of articles. For that reason I think it's best that the full Editorial Council decides.




'''Driver:''' [[User:Andrew Su|Andrew Su]]
'''Driver:''' None


== Complete explanation ==
== Complete explanation ==
Line 145: Line 150:
:Hi Daniel, pardon my inexperience, but I'm not exactly sure how {{tl|Gla}} and {{tl|Rpl}} work.  I can see the test page [[APP]] linked [[CZ:Proposals/Create_a_page_for_all_notable_genes_in_the_human_genome/Testpage|here]], but I'm not sure how you'd envision this all working in the end.  Would this page evolve/expand into an index of gene pages?  I think I'm missing something here...  Cheers, [[User:Andrew Su|Andrew Su]] 14:53, 22 May 2008 (CDT)
:Hi Daniel, pardon my inexperience, but I'm not exactly sure how {{tl|Gla}} and {{tl|Rpl}} work.  I can see the test page [[APP]] linked [[CZ:Proposals/Create_a_page_for_all_notable_genes_in_the_human_genome/Testpage|here]], but I'm not sure how you'd envision this all working in the end.  Would this page evolve/expand into an index of gene pages?  I think I'm missing something here...  Cheers, [[User:Andrew Su|Andrew Su]] 14:53, 22 May 2008 (CDT)
::Hmm, okay, a bit more poking around helped...  This would be a visual view of available content which would enhance your proposal above for the create-on-demand bot.  (One doesn't seem to depend on the other, right?)  Oh, and fyi, we have something planned that would be have like the [http://diberri.dyndns.org/cgi-bin/templatefiller/index.cgi?ddb=&type=hgnc_id&id=2475 Diberri tool], but that's still quite some ways off.  And, I'm not sure how we'd get it to work with subpages.  Anyway, that I think is also a very good create-on-demand option. [[User:Andrew Su|Andrew Su]] 15:01, 22 May 2008 (CDT)
::Hmm, okay, a bit more poking around helped...  This would be a visual view of available content which would enhance your proposal above for the create-on-demand bot.  (One doesn't seem to depend on the other, right?)  Oh, and fyi, we have something planned that would be have like the [http://diberri.dyndns.org/cgi-bin/templatefiller/index.cgi?ddb=&type=hgnc_id&id=2475 Diberri tool], but that's still quite some ways off.  And, I'm not sure how we'd get it to work with subpages.  Anyway, that I think is also a very good create-on-demand option. [[User:Andrew Su|Andrew Su]] 15:01, 22 May 2008 (CDT)
:::I am basically quite sympathetic to bot-assisted fact-picking from any suitable database, and genes could be a good start. However, I agree with David in that bot-assisted content (though it can quickly get to high standards nowadays, as highlighted by diberri, [http://esciencenews.com/ Eureka science news] and other sites) is not necessarily what people look for in an encyclopedia, and I think an overwhelming mass of anything (genes, airplanes or sandpaper types) in the Random Articles might deter more non-specialists than it brings in specialists (not sure how much this feature is used, though, and by whom). Both the on the fly creation and transfer from a different namespace would alleviate this problem. I would be fine either way, and so would the test page. What I imagine in the automated part is that we have a list containing nothing else than <nowiki>{{gla|Gene_001}} ... to {{Gla|Gene_400}}</nowiki> (that's the quick part) to which the template (once functional) could then add contents that the bot has provided ''somewhere on CZ, perhaps not in the main namespace''. This content would include data for the page-to-be plus a definition like "''{{def|APP}}''" for [[APP]]. Once we have agreed on whether to put what bot-assisted information where, the template can be told to gather it there. More documentation on the template is at {{tl|Gla}}. -- [[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 18:49, 22 May 2008 (CDT)
::::Does anyone know how many people get to CZ via a web search to a specific article page, and how many people go directly to CZ and click the Random Article link?  This seems to be a point of great concern, and I'm curious what the numbers say.  [[User:Andrew Su|Andrew Su]] 19:16, 22 May 2008 (CDT)


== What distinguishes genes from all other categories ==
== What distinguishes genes from all other categories ==
I just don't get it.  Am I missing something here?  I just don't see why genes, or "notable genes" are in any way distinguised from hundreds of other categories, each of which have publicly available databases.  Examples being  proteins, chemicals (or notable human metabolites), Nobel prize winners, dictionary words, types of pistons, types of airplanes, sandpaper types, Kings and Queens, and on and on.  What do those in favor of this project have to say that distinguishes this list of things from all of the miriad lists of other things?  I simply think this is just a list of things.  The fact that the science is young and lacks detail, as someone alluded to earlier, is not very convincing.
I just don't get it.  Am I missing something here?  I just don't see why genes, or "notable genes" are in any way distinguised from hundreds of other categories, each of which have publicly available databases.  Examples being  proteins, chemicals (or notable human metabolites), Nobel prize winners, dictionary words, types of pistons, types of airplanes, sandpaper types, Kings and Queens, and on and on.  What do those in favor of this project have to say that distinguishes this list of things from all of the miriad lists of other things?  I simply think this is just a list of things.  The fact that the science is young and lacks detail, as someone alluded to earlier, is not very convincing.[[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 17:06, 22 May 2008 (CDT)
 
:Hi David, no, I don't think you're missing anything.  I think we just have a different idea of how CZ would or would not benefit from this effort.  To speak to your examples above, I actually do think that many of those categories would be reasonable to create stubs for.  For example, a stub for all Nobel Prize winners would be fantastic (if there were a database of biographic information we could use to populate it).  Chemicals?  Yeah, I say do it for notable ones (maybe all FDA-approved drugs), again assuming there's enough to make the stub useful.  What differentiates the genes/proteins effort that I'm proposing is that I'm interested in genes and proteins, I'm spelling out exactly what kind of stub content is available, and I'm offering to do the work.  That in my book is the biggest difference.  (Again, I don't think the dictionary analogy holds.  CZ is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary.) 
 
:On slightly tangential note, I'm happy that there is some activity here again.  But if this is going to take an EC resolution to resolve this one way or another, it would help if there were actually EC members here to discuss and ask questions.  Then, "regular folks" like us can state our cases one way or another so the EC can make an informed decision.  So any EC members watching?  If not, then I think this proposal is destined to die by neglect...  (And scanning through the recent EC activity, gotta say, if EC has time to vote on a systematic recipe effort and not one on genes/proteins, yikes...)  Cheers, [[User:Andrew Su|Andrew Su]] 19:06, 22 May 2008 (CDT)  Apologies, just noticed that both David and Chris are EC members.  I withdraw my plea for greater EC involvement, and I'll leave it up to you guys when/if to formally propose it...  [[User:Andrew Su|Andrew Su]] 19:12, 22 May 2008 (CDT)
 
::Andrew, what I am asking is why should we devote progammer/developer time for this initiative vs others.  I think if we accept this proposal, there is no justification to deny all of the other lists.  This would seem to entail, at least initially, the create of a new name space so as to drop our average word count to 30.  There are so many data bases available these days.  As for the drug articles, I am actually doing them one at a time, up to perhaps 120 or more so far, with structures, etc, but there are at least 4000 drugs out there now.  So my arguments so far to date have basically been "why this subject".  Is it more worthy than others.  Are you going to do the programming?
::Could we do 100 at a time and then have you develope each one, then do the next 100? [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 22:02, 22 May 2008 (CDT)
 
:::Nope, we can do bot programming, but not MW programming.  If the EC feels like the namespace change is necessary, then I agree it significantly detracts from the desirability of this proposal on both ends.  As to the question "why this subject", again, it's a subject that I'm interested in and that I am willing to devote time and resources to.  As to the proposal of doing 100 at a time, I'd suggest the minimum is 1000 to make it worth everyone's effort.  Again, the point is not that ''I'm'' going to develop these articles, but that these are stubs to draw new editors in.  If the EC feels that this effort is not likely to bring new editors in, or that it's not worth having the "cruft" laying around, then that would be a good reason to pass on the proposal.  [[User:Andrew Su|Andrew Su]] 23:31, 22 May 2008 (CDT)
 
::::To get an idea what kind of information could be similarly harvested by article creation bots (and on what scale), [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Size_comparisons#Size_of_other_information_collections WP's size comparison of information collections on the web] might be of interest. -- [[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 04:52, 23 May 2008 (CDT)


==Straw poll==
==Straw poll==
Line 159: Line 178:


{{Proposals navigation}}
{{Proposals navigation}}
</div>

Revision as of 05:39, 15 July 2008