Options

Antibiotic resistance

Created a stub page on Antibiotic resistance.

Here are some suggested categories:

  • Society

  • Medicine

  • Stub

We can use the stub category to help "de-stubbers" find pages to work on.

Although the form doesn't allow it, Instiki allows multiple categorizations for the same article. I propose that we use this feature. It would be natural, for example, to list my Epidemic page under Medicine and Stub. We can designate the first category tag as the primary category, to which will correspond the forum category.

Comments

  • 1.

    Hi David,

    I hope you don't take this as an offense, but I'd like to remark the following: all these new pages you've made are very important topics, but when I started here on the Forum I believe someone told me it's better to start few new pages but which are worked out, than to start a lot of stubs. It's not certain someone else will fill in the material in the near future, and then the Azimuth Library becomes a half-cooked collection of articles.

    Comment Source:Hi David, I hope you don't take this as an offense, but I'd like to remark the following: all these new pages you've made are very important topics, but when I started here on the Forum I believe someone told me it's better to start few new pages but which are worked out, than to start a lot of stubs. It's not certain someone else will fill in the material in the near future, and then the Azimuth Library becomes a half-cooked collection of articles.
  • 2.

    A few pages have category 'social sciences', http://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/list/social+sciences which I prefer to 'society'. Quite a lot of pages already have multiple categories (and that's good).

    Comment Source:A few pages have category 'social sciences', [http://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/list/social+sciences](http://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/list/social+sciences) which I prefer to 'society'. Quite a lot of pages already have multiple categories (and that's good).
  • 3.
    edited January 2013

    Frederik, fair enough, if that is the consensus -- I'm still learning my way around here.

    So the question in my mind now is: how much critical mass of material should a stub have before being posted? Is, for example, the stub that I created on Ozone depletion sufficient to start the process of a page?

    In any case, we should have an organized way for people to create some kind of visible record that says: this is an important, environment-related topic, which deserves a wiki page. Creation of a stub page is the most direct and permanent way to do this, but it suffers from the problem you mentioned, that we could end up with a lot of underpopulated pages.

    By the way, I got all the stubs out of my system last night, these were the major environmental topics on my mind, for which I didn't see a wiki page.

    Here are some approaches that I could see:

    • Start a forum thread, without actually creating the page. Trouble with this is that it lacks permanence, and the thread could fade away before anyone gets mobilized to actually do the writing.

    • We could create a page with a list of "Pages to be written," and link to this from a prominent place, e.g. on the home page. (Do we have this already?) The contents of this page could be maintained by consensus, to be about topics of agreed environmental significance, and not just anyone's list of hobby topics.

    • We could create stub pages that are actually marked as such. For instance, we could make the titles be "Stub - Antibiotic resistance," and assign it to the category "stub." Then, if and when it attains sufficient mass, the title could be changed to "Antibiotic resistance." I really like the idea that anyone could just type in "stub" in the query box, and find a list of all pages that need basic help. For newcomers to Azimuth, this could offer an even lower barrier to entry -- they would be less inhibited to add a bit to an existing page, rather than create a new one from scratch.

    What do you guys suggest that I do with those pages? I'm not especially attached to the form of these pages but I do feel that they are important enough issues that they should be indicated in some visible place.

    Comment Source:Frederik, fair enough, if that is the consensus -- I'm still learning my way around here. So the question in my mind now is: how much critical mass of material should a stub have before being posted? Is, for example, the stub that I created on Ozone depletion sufficient to start the process of a page? In any case, we should have an organized way for people to create some kind of visible record that says: this is an important, environment-related topic, which deserves a wiki page. Creation of a stub page is the most direct and permanent way to do this, but it suffers from the problem you mentioned, that we could end up with a lot of underpopulated pages. By the way, I got all the stubs out of my system last night, these were the major environmental topics on my mind, for which I didn't see a wiki page. Here are some approaches that I could see: - Start a forum thread, without actually creating the page. Trouble with this is that it lacks permanence, and the thread could fade away before anyone gets mobilized to actually do the writing. - We could create a page with a list of "Pages to be written," and link to this from a prominent place, e.g. on the home page. (Do we have this already?) The contents of this page could be maintained by consensus, to be about topics of agreed environmental significance, and not just anyone's list of hobby topics. - We could create stub pages that are actually marked as such. For instance, we could make the titles be "Stub - Antibiotic resistance," and assign it to the category "stub." Then, if and when it attains sufficient mass, the title could be changed to "Antibiotic resistance." I really like the idea that anyone could just type in "stub" in the query box, and find a list of all pages that need basic help. For newcomers to Azimuth, this could offer an even lower barrier to entry -- they would be less inhibited to add a bit to an existing page, rather than create a new one from scratch. What do you guys suggest that I do with those pages? I'm not especially attached to the form of these pages but I do feel that they are important enough issues that they should be indicated in some visible place.
  • 4.
    edited January 2013

    Ok, I have a new idea for how to solve the Stubs Riddle. The riddle is this. Every article has to start with something, and at first it might be not much more than the recognition of the importance of a topic, the creation of a page, and the creation of a forum thread to note the topic and invite further discussion. But if this were left unchecked we would end up with lots of very incomplete articles.

    So, here's what we can do. We'll create an new page called Stubs. This will not only contain a list of titles and topic statements, but also will contain the bodies of the stub articles, in line. At the top we'll put a disclaimer that says that this is provisional, pre-published material. You still create a forum thread to discuss your stub article, but you call the discussion e.g. "Stub - Antibiotic resistance." Everyone would be encouraged to browse the Stub page, make corrections, additions, etc. We could have a link to it on the page that suggests how people can help -- Add a stub about an important topic! Improve the writing there! When something becomes mature enough, we'll cut it out of Stubs and create the real page. It will be a goal for us to add important stub articles, develop them, and move them into the wiki.

    The table of contents for the Stubs page will naturally give a breakdown of the articles that it contains.

    This is simpler than using the category system, and it doesn't require any new pages to be created for stubs. And Simple means that it is more likely to be used.

    If there are no objections or other suggestions regarding this idea, then next week I will create the Stubs page, copy my stub articles into it, and "delete" the stubs that I created.

    Also if anyone thinks that any of these particular stubs, e.g., Ozone depletion, has enough mass to remain, and/or thinks that they can add to them, then let me know here, and I won't migrate those particular ones to Stubs.

    Thanks

    Comment Source:Ok, I have a new idea for how to solve the Stubs Riddle. The riddle is this. Every article has to start with something, and at first it might be not much more than the recognition of the importance of a topic, the creation of a page, and the creation of a forum thread to note the topic and invite further discussion. But if this were left unchecked we would end up with lots of very incomplete articles. So, here's what we can do. We'll create an new page called Stubs. This will not only contain a list of titles and topic statements, but also will contain the bodies of the stub articles, in line. At the top we'll put a disclaimer that says that this is provisional, pre-published material. You still create a forum thread to discuss your stub article, but you call the discussion e.g. "Stub - Antibiotic resistance." Everyone would be encouraged to browse the Stub page, make corrections, additions, etc. We could have a link to it on the page that suggests how people can help -- Add a stub about an important topic! Improve the writing there! When something becomes mature enough, we'll cut it out of Stubs and create the real page. It will be a _goal_ for us to add important stub articles, develop them, and move them into the wiki. The table of contents for the Stubs page will naturally give a breakdown of the articles that it contains. This is simpler than using the category system, and it doesn't require any new pages to be created for stubs. And Simple means that it is more likely to be used. If there are no objections or other suggestions regarding this idea, then next week I will create the Stubs page, copy my stub articles into it, and "delete" the stubs that I created. Also if anyone thinks that any of these particular stubs, e.g., Ozone depletion, has enough mass to remain, and/or thinks that they can add to them, then let me know here, and I won't migrate those particular ones to Stubs. Thanks
  • 5.
    edited January 2013

    Ok, I have a new idea for how to solve the Stubs Riddle

    Sounds clever!

    Another option is to name the page "Stub - X" and then removing the prefix stub when it gets decently filled. While it's a stub one could also put it in the category:stub, and writing a redirect for X, so that you can actually already reference it from other pages. But when readers end up on this page, they'll notice it is a stub.

    I think the Ozone depletion would look ok if it would be polished a bit and the text should be put

    in quotation

    because it's just from Wikipedia right?

    But if a page has no more then the wikipedia page, I think people can just as well surf to Wikipedia, then we don't need it here yet.

    Comment Source:> Ok, I have a new idea for how to solve the Stubs Riddle Sounds clever! Another option is to name the page "Stub - X" and then removing the prefix stub when it gets decently filled. While it's a stub one could also put it in the category:stub, and writing a redirect for X, so that you can actually already reference it from other pages. But when readers end up on this page, they'll notice it is a stub. I think the [[Ozone depletion]] would look ok if it would be polished a bit and the text should be put > in quotation because it's just from Wikipedia right? But if a page has no more then the wikipedia page, I think people can just as well surf to Wikipedia, then we don't need it here yet.
  • 6.
    edited January 2013

    Frederik, thanks for the input.

    We can combine both approaches to Stubs.

    I will create the page Stubs, which will be the master index of stub pages. It will contain the disclaimer at the top, and a mixture of inline stubs, and links to pages of the form "Stub - X". Things which are very preliminary, e.g., notes, or statements of intent for a page can go inline. Something that more closely resembles a first draft could go into a page "Stub - X." People could use their judgement about which form they want to express their stub ideas in. And we could still maintain a drive to get ideas into the Stubs page, flesh them out, and move them into real wiki pages.

    Comment Source:Frederik, thanks for the input. We can combine both approaches to Stubs. I will create the page Stubs, which will be the master index of stub pages. It will contain the disclaimer at the top, and a mixture of inline stubs, and links to pages of the form "Stub - X". Things which are very preliminary, e.g., notes, or statements of intent for a page can go inline. Something that more closely resembles a first draft could go into a page "Stub - X." People could use their judgement about which form they want to express their stub ideas in. And we could still maintain a drive to get ideas into the Stubs page, flesh them out, and move them into real wiki pages.
  • 7.

    Agreed!

    Maybe we should mention on the Forum that we propose this as a guideline for stubs. I'll do this right away.

    Comment Source:Agreed! Maybe we should mention on the Forum that we propose this as a guideline for stubs. I'll do this right away.
  • 8.

    I created a related page, for now recording few links about evolution.

    Comment Source:I created a related page, for now recording few links about [[evolution]].
Sign In or Register to comment.