CZ Talk:Biology Week/PLoS: Difference between revisions
imported>Supten Sarbadhikari |
imported>Larry Sanger |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
==Expansion of the article for PLoS== | ==Expansion of the article for PLoS== | ||
Some of the points clarified by Larry at [[CZ:Myths_and_Facts]] may be used. [[User:Supten Sarbadhikari|Supten Sarbadhikari]] 06:41, 19 June 2008 (CDT) | Some of the points clarified by Larry at [[CZ:Myths_and_Facts]] may be used. [[User:Supten Sarbadhikari|Supten Sarbadhikari]] 06:41, 19 June 2008 (CDT) | ||
Sure, if you think they'll help. | |||
Some comments: | |||
:Traditional models relied on a set of paid editors whose combined expertise covered all fields within the scope of the reference work and who wrote individual articles rather independently, with little involvement of others. However, this model does not scale with the expansion of scientific (and other) knowledge. | |||
I don't think scalability is the greatest, or at least the only advantage. Collaboration can make for more exhaustive and balanced coverage of a topic. Also, while editors and authors aren't paid, the results are free--hence, the impact of the work is greater. | |||
We do want to get other Workgroup Weeks started...I have too much to do! But until we've set the dates, we can't report on them. | |||
As to the rest, it's looking good! --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 12:08, 19 June 2008 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 12:08, 19 June 2008
Image of Life Cycle
Some biogeochemical cycle or any organism's cycle of life may give an idea of of biology spanning life and death, as also the theme of "recurrence". Example like this may be drawn by an artist. Supten Sarbadhikari 06:33, 19 June 2008 (CDT)
Expansion of the article for PLoS
Some of the points clarified by Larry at CZ:Myths_and_Facts may be used. Supten Sarbadhikari 06:41, 19 June 2008 (CDT)
Sure, if you think they'll help.
Some comments:
- Traditional models relied on a set of paid editors whose combined expertise covered all fields within the scope of the reference work and who wrote individual articles rather independently, with little involvement of others. However, this model does not scale with the expansion of scientific (and other) knowledge.
I don't think scalability is the greatest, or at least the only advantage. Collaboration can make for more exhaustive and balanced coverage of a topic. Also, while editors and authors aren't paid, the results are free--hence, the impact of the work is greater.
We do want to get other Workgroup Weeks started...I have too much to do! But until we've set the dates, we can't report on them.
As to the rest, it's looking good! --Larry Sanger 12:08, 19 June 2008 (CDT)