Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry/Participants

Proposal for project.

I would be willing to manage projects here, guiding and overseeing efforts by wikipedia student editors if there is sufficient interest. The way to view this is as a virtual research group, akin to the brick-and-mortar research groups to which many of you are attached.

On idea for such a project is to begin to make uniform the presentations of name reactions, thgouth use of content provided by reputable sources such as:

    Strategic Applications of Named Reactions in Organic Synthesis, by Laszlo Kurti and  Barbara Czako.

In such a case, I would make content with the book authors, and clarify how content would be used (and their roles in ultimate editorial oversight). I would serve as immediate scientific editor/manager, with individual adaptations of reactions to articles accomplished by myself and other team members.

If interested, please leave me a note here. Prof D. Meduban (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

That's not really the way Wikipedia works most of the time. In my experience, chemistry writing in Wikipedia naturally occurs in a chaotic manner. We have a few wishlists for article content, but these are mostly ignored. Editors improve articles by many incremental changes, as and when they feel motivated. It's more a hobby than a job for most editors, hence the more leisurely pace. What you're proposing is much more like real work. It might lead to higher quality, more comprehensive content, but for me and perhaps others, it's too much like the day job! If I want an academic to tell me what to write about, I go to work. For me, the most enjoyable aspect of editing Wikipedia is finding out about a topic that happens to grab my interest at the time and summarising it.

I would be put off by a long, systematic list of writing to be done, and especially by the prospect of having a manager. You know more about chemistry than I do, but I probably know better what it's like to be a novice. I would say my viewpoint is just as important in writing Wikipedia articles, because I am more likely to write something that the average reader will understand. Is there a particular problem with inconsistency in articles about named reactions? I so, I might be able to help out. As and when I feel like it, of course! --Ben (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm very much in agreement with Ben. I enjoy editing Wikipedia, especially writing new articles and adding significant amounts of content to articles that are slim on information. But I do it 1) when I have the free time and 2) when I feel like using my free time to edit Wikipedia. The idea of having a managing editor and having to deal with deadlines doesn't appeal to me - that's too much like work. For me, editing Wiki pages is a hobby, something I do for fun.

I have Kurti's book and it's an excellent resource on named reactions. I could be misinterpreting your proposal (and if I am, please feel free to correct me), but it sounds like you want to work directly with the two authors of the book and port their content (or some version of it) onto Wikipedia. I'm all for consistency between articles, especially articles that fall into the same category (i.e. named reactions), but I don't know if relying so heavily on a single source is the way to do that. Again, I could be misunderstanding what you propose to do, but I don't see much worth in having what amounts to a Wikified version of the Kurti/Czako text in place of the existing articles on named reactions. While it's a great book on the subject, it's also written for advanced readers; Wikipedia content needs to be simpler and more universally understandable. Ckalnmals (talk) 04:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Why would we need managers just to copy the (excellent) Kurti & Czako book? Any child can do that!. On the other hand we would need a lawyer when Kurti & Czako (rightfully) start to sue WIkipedia for copying their book...In the meanwhile the named reactions pages are in pretty good shape and already consistent with Kurti & Czako. V8rik (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Please refill the list alphabetically

The name order is now quite a mess, please refill it if possible. -Lemonaka‎ 11:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)