WikiChem talk:Mission statement

Thanks, this looks like a good solid start. I'll start tweaking it, but it's basically in line with what I think about this. Walkerma 15:38, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Sighting

OK, this is indeed a nice start, but if we want this to be 'bigger', then we need to set this up in a totally different way. And it will need a different attitude from authors. I would need real time to write that up, but here are my starting views )maybe a bit confusing, and may need some expansion):

1. Disable editing from IPs, so everyone is required to create an account.
2. Opening statement, which people must read that when they create an account:
   1. Everyone can edit, but the main goal is to write a reliable source.
   2. This will also mean that any form of disruption (vandalism, reference-spamming, etc.) may result in blocking of accounts. If too much disruption occurs from certain ranges, then account-creation from those ranges can be blocked, accounts should then be requested via an e-mail system.
3. Install 'Sighted versions', and set that up properly (haven't done that, but a feel for what I'd like to have is below. Articles can now be flagged as 'sighted' and 'reviewed'
   1. Sighting:
      1. 'Group leaders' (whose accounts need to be confirmed in some way, with group leaders I mean the professors and lecturers who work on the chemwiki) get the right to 'sight' pages of which they think the quality is high enough.
      2. Sighting can also be given to editors when their group leader thinks they are good enough to judge their own data. Such editors have to be confirmed to work in that group.
      3. Sighting can also be acquired when you are trusted enough by the community.
   2. Reviewing:
      1. Very trusted group leaders, and others can get the review function.

1. Articles:
   1. Anyone can start an article about a subject. Like in wikipedia.
   2. Lets say I have made a new compound, and I want to put it here.
      1. I make the article with the name of the compound. I tell how I make it, and add some physical data. When I think it is complete I sight it (or my group leader does that). The article can also be created when you have all the data complete, in that case you can claim all of the compound for yourself, otherwise other people can also add data when they have that available.
      2. Layout has to be in accordance with a ChemWiki:Manual of Style, content rules in ChemWiki:Content policy.
      3. When you think the data is good enough, you self, your group leader, or someone else ´sights´ the article.
      4. When I think it is ready, I want it reviewed, so I add a {{review request}} to it (or to the talkpage), create a subpage under ChemWiki:Request for Review, and transclude it on the top-page there.
   3. If I want to write more, like a complete article, the process is similar
      1. I write the article, and write articles about all compounds I use
      2. In this case the Wikipedia:Request for Review is for the main article, but it should also list which of the other articles are within the same group (one could use categories for that). Compounds used in that article could already have been reviewed in another process.

Some 'problems':

1. We need an ethics here according editing the compound of someone else. But I can also imagine that it is possible to work together on these things. Still we need some policy for this, and people need to acknowledge that.
2. People claiming things that they can't actually get to. These should be up for deletion where possible. I mean, I can say I can make a certain compound, but if I can't back the claim up with physical data or something, then the article should be deleted.

More may come up. But this is for now how I think the software here should be set up. If we do that properly, then we can move on. --Beetstra 10:59, 1 March 2008 (EST)

Sounds great, Dirk. I was thinking about the "checking" aspect, where another chemist can check the procedures published, just like in Org/Inorg Synth. This can be parallel to "sighting". What do you think? --Rifleman 82 11:16, 1 March 2008 (EST)

I have never worked with sighted versions, and I don't know in how far you can adapt these (I have heard quite a lot). It would be nice to add another flag then 'independent repeated' or something. --Beetstra 11:19, 1 March 2008 (EST)

Or we could just sign our experimental sections (with our own names)? I by no means refer to owning; just signing off the experimentals. Or, we can have the articlename/experimentals, and we will write it and transclude it to the main article. This way, we only have *one* person editing the experimentals - the only other people to edit that subpage might be the one (or more?) people checking and validating it. --Rifleman 82 11:26, 1 March 2008 (EST)

Not too fond of that plan. Get rid of the ownership at all, if you need to check something about that then there is always the edit history. --Beetstra 11:28, 1 March 2008 (EST)

I love the idea of signing off on another synthesis, or allowing, "I repeated it, but I found DMA was better than DMF". I agree with Dirk about the "ownership" idea. As for sighted versions, they still have to be implemented in practice, but I am on that Listserve and will let you know if it is released.

Content policy

Project:Manual of style should be about the nuts and bolts - how to format an article, what information to present first, etc. Project:Content policy should be more about "what sort of information are we going to publish in this encyclopedia"? --Rifleman 82 09:46, 2 March 2008 (EST)

I agree. --Beetstra 12:57, 2 March 2008 (EST)