User talk:TimVickers/Symatlas and Wikipedia

Not a database

Sounds like a great idea, but the key here is the annotation. The annotation is, I hope, not just scientists adding new data as it comes in, but should be expanding the coverage beyond just science. ie. using a scientific database as the seed material for general encyclopedic articles. Who did what when? That is the basic question I would ask. As long as stuff like this is added to immediately expand it away from being just data from a database, then fine. But really, Wikipedia should be wary about just being a dumping ground for data. Look at the chemistry elements articles for examples. The Chembox handles the data, but the articles (should) have further historical and other context. eg. hydrogen. Carcharoth 23:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the proof of this idea is going to be in how easy it is going to be to recruit people to tell us what they know. Thankfully, scientists are often enthusiastic about communicating their subjects, so this might be easier than you would think. TimVickers 23:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hope so! It would be great if this took off. I've added some links to the essay (hope that's OK). I changed Sanger Center to Sanger Institute as it seems to be called now, unless you meant a different Sanger Center (since you used the US spelling)? Carcharoth 00:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't realised they had changed their name. Another argument for Wikitext! TimVickers 00:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]