User talk:Peter A. Lipson: Difference between revisions
imported>Nancy Sculerati |
imported>Nancy Sculerati |
||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
Peter, if you are anything like me (and I suspect you are) it's sometimes nice to switch around rather than stay dead on in one topic. That's my excuse for asking you to take a look at [[Cancer]], I started this some time ago. I did not find the wikipedia article at all appealing, though I have forgotten why. So, when I started it, I started from scratch- again with the idea that the article should be strictly accurate, but aimed at the highest level of patient education rather than being a pretend medical textbook. On the other hand, if the goal of being truly at the ''highest'' level of patient education is reached, then it serves for professionals as well (just without jargon and trying to stay kind and hopeful). That's the theory, anyway- and since the internet is probably the primary source of educated people's current health information- and since there are few or no comprehensive and readable sites aimed at the intelligent, literate patient, I think CZ can really serve a good purpose here. That's my pitch! [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 11:47, 2 May 2007 (CDT) | Peter, if you are anything like me (and I suspect you are) it's sometimes nice to switch around rather than stay dead on in one topic. That's my excuse for asking you to take a look at [[Cancer]], I started this some time ago. I did not find the wikipedia article at all appealing, though I have forgotten why. So, when I started it, I started from scratch- again with the idea that the article should be strictly accurate, but aimed at the highest level of patient education rather than being a pretend medical textbook. On the other hand, if the goal of being truly at the ''highest'' level of patient education is reached, then it serves for professionals as well (just without jargon and trying to stay kind and hopeful). That's the theory, anyway- and since the internet is probably the primary source of educated people's current health information- and since there are few or no comprehensive and readable sites aimed at the intelligent, literate patient, I think CZ can really serve a good purpose here. That's my pitch! [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 11:47, 2 May 2007 (CDT) | ||
::That's so considerate of you, but please- don't bother. Edit and revise the article itself. It's ''such'' a big topic and I welcome your input.I know a little something about cancer, from a biological standpoint, but I'm no expert, and my clinical experience has been very skewed- head and neck malignancies, pediatric malignancies, and brain cancers, so really, do what you will. I'll help. By the way- I agree, linking is good for the different types of cancers. However, I do think a couple of lines about the major ones is also needed. So many people really do not understand that the cancer that they found in the liver is not "liver cancer", for example- and it would be good to lay that out upfront right there in that article. I think., anyway. Not a whole summary of the stats and such for each type of cancer, just what that cancer is- it is likely that at least some people will look at that article with a certain kind of cancer in mind, and not know the right term for it. Having a whole list of the terms or terms with links does not help them. [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 12:56, 2 May 2007 (CDT) | ::That's so considerate of you, but please- don't bother. Edit and revise the article itself. It's ''such'' a big topic and I welcome your input.I know a little something about cancer, from a biological standpoint, but I'm no expert, and my clinical experience has been very skewed- head and neck malignancies, pediatric malignancies, and brain cancers, so really, do what you will. I'll help. By the way- I agree, linking is good for the different types of cancers. However, I do think a couple of lines about the major ones is also needed. So many people really do not understand that "the cancer that they found in the liver" is ''not'' "liver cancer", for example- and it would be good to lay that out upfront right there in that article. I think., anyway. Not a whole summary of the stats and such for each type of cancer, just what that cancer is- it is likely that at least some people will look at that article with a certain kind of cancer in mind, and not know the right term for it. Having a whole list of the terms or terms with links does not help them. [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 12:56, 2 May 2007 (CDT) | ||
Revision as of 12:57, 2 May 2007
Welcome!
Tasks: start a new article • add basic, wanted or requested articles • add definitions • add metadata • edit new pages
Welcome to the Citizendium! We hope you will contribute boldly and well. Here are pointers for a quick start. You'll probably want to know how to get started as an author. Just look at Getting Started for other helpful "startup" links, our help system and CZ:Home for the top menu of community pages. Be sure to stay abreast of events via Twitter. You can test out editing in the sandbox if you'd like. If you need help to get going, the forum is one option. That's also where we discuss policy and proposals. You can ask any administrator for help, too. Just put a note on their "talk" page. Again, welcome and have fun! -- Stephen Ewen 22:08, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
A few words about workgroups
We are indeed happy to have you in the community. We would also like to introduce you to Citizendium's Workgroups and encourage you to--
- Join a workgroup if you haven't already
- Help us add workgroup category tags to articles, especially any articles you create
- Help us spread the word about workgroups within the CZ community
What are workgroups? To answer that question, I'd like to give you a quick tour.
- Start by checking the various workgroups we have at CZ: List of Workgroups. This link can also be found in the left navigation-bar in the 2nd box (Project Pages), 3rd link in that box (Workgroups). The Workgroup Home(s) can be found in the 2nd column in the List of Workgroups.
- For the purposes of this tour, please take a look at the Biology Workgroup Home: CZ:Biology_Workgroup.
- Now let's take a look at the first table on the Biology Workgroup Home (below).
Workgroups are no longer used for group communications, but they still are used to group articles into fields of interest. Each article is assigned to 1-3 Workgroups via the article's Metadata. |
 | |||||||
| Biology article | All articles (1,640) | To Approve (0) | Editors: active (1) / inactive (46) and Authors: active (441) / inactive (0) |
Workgroup Discussion | |||
| Recent changes | Citable Articles (25) | ||||||
| Subgroups (12.5) | |||||||
Checklist-generated categories:
Subpage categories:
|
Missing subpage categories:
Article statuses:
| ||||||||
- In the 2nd column, find the link that says, "all articles," which lists all articles that users have placed [[Category:Biology Workgroup]] at the bottom of their articles.
- Now click on the "recent changes" link underneath the "all articles" in the 2nd column in the top table. This lists all recent changes in articles that have been tagged [[Category:Biology Workgroup]]. In one glance, you can view all the changes that happened while you were away! Feel free to click on all the links to get an idea how the information for your workgroup is organized. All these lists are populated by articles that have the categories properly placed at the bottom of their pages.
This completes your virtual-tour of CZ workgroups. I hope you can see the usefulness of having all articles in Citizendium tagged properly with your Workgroup categories. Make sure to add the Workgroup category labels to your new articles. This is an important part of the Approval process.
Be sure to join a workgroup and take part in this opportunity to collaborate with others who have similar interests as you. You can see what others are working on in the Workgroup recent changes and join in! Remember, we want you to be bold in your contributions at Citizendium.
To add yourself to a workgroup, use the form [[Category:Education Authors|Smith, Bob]], etc., and add it to your user page. Substitute the proper work group for "Education" in the example, and your name-Last, First for the names in the example.
Do not add yourself to the Editors list, only CZ staff add "Editors" to user pages after proper review of applications is completed. To apply to become an editor, please see Editor Application Review Procedure.
To add a workgroup category tag to an article, use the form [[Category:Education Workgroup]] at the bottom of the article. Substitute in the proper workgroup for "Education" in the example.
If you are from Wikipedia originally, you may want to check out this article:
-- Stephen Ewen 22:08, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
Medical Articles
I think you have started some really great articles. We should cncentrate on developing Hypertension, Tuberculosis, Myocardial Infarction and Stroke before starting more, I think. There is an active hematologist on the wiki, and he may help.Nancy Sculerati 23:32, 27 April 2007 (CDT)
- Thanks much. I'm currently working on stroke, then ill move toward htn.--Peter A. Lipson 23:34, 27 April 2007 (CDT)
Well, thanks for your message. It's fun to collaborate, so glad you are here.Nancy Sculerati 20:00, 30 April 2007 (CDT)
No, I wish I did. Nancy Sculerati 14:41, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
LOL Peter, you don't know the depth of cluelessness you are dealing with in me- I have never been able to do any references- at all! I have NO idea what you are talking about. :-) Nancy Sculerati 15:31, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
I believe you can also assign a reference a name, as in:
<ref name="whatever">The body of the reference goes here</ref>
and then refer to it by name afterwards. (I don't think I've tried to do this - mostly because I think having a bunch of arrows next to a refeence looks really ugly.) Greg Woodhouse 15:48, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
I've tried the name thing, I just have trouble re-referencing it afterwords. I'm working on that. Thanks.Peter A. Lipson 20:20, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
- You write along and include a reference, just use: <ref>the book name or link you want people to see</ref>. At the end of the article, <references/> will flush out what you want people to see and number all of the references into a nice list. Whatever is placed between <ref> and </ref> then appears in the nice, numbered list. . . The specialized <ref name="whatever">any book, link or message here</ref> would be a reference that you wanted to refer to more than once. To use it anytime later in an article, <ref name=whatever />. In the article a little number will jump to that single reference. CZ:How to edit an article#References and citations Terry E. Olsen 22:05, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
Thank you for your comment
Thank you for commenting at Talk:Scientology_(theory), the article has been renamed from (the philosophy) to (theory) and we're still working on it. I re-wrote what I thought you commented on and would appreciate further comments, if you would wish to. Terry E. Olsen 17:49, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
Would you please take a look?
Peter, if you are anything like me (and I suspect you are) it's sometimes nice to switch around rather than stay dead on in one topic. That's my excuse for asking you to take a look at Cancer, I started this some time ago. I did not find the wikipedia article at all appealing, though I have forgotten why. So, when I started it, I started from scratch- again with the idea that the article should be strictly accurate, but aimed at the highest level of patient education rather than being a pretend medical textbook. On the other hand, if the goal of being truly at the highest level of patient education is reached, then it serves for professionals as well (just without jargon and trying to stay kind and hopeful). That's the theory, anyway- and since the internet is probably the primary source of educated people's current health information- and since there are few or no comprehensive and readable sites aimed at the intelligent, literate patient, I think CZ can really serve a good purpose here. That's my pitch! Nancy Sculerati 11:47, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
- That's so considerate of you, but please- don't bother. Edit and revise the article itself. It's such a big topic and I welcome your input.I know a little something about cancer, from a biological standpoint, but I'm no expert, and my clinical experience has been very skewed- head and neck malignancies, pediatric malignancies, and brain cancers, so really, do what you will. I'll help. By the way- I agree, linking is good for the different types of cancers. However, I do think a couple of lines about the major ones is also needed. So many people really do not understand that "the cancer that they found in the liver" is not "liver cancer", for example- and it would be good to lay that out upfront right there in that article. I think., anyway. Not a whole summary of the stats and such for each type of cancer, just what that cancer is- it is likely that at least some people will look at that article with a certain kind of cancer in mind, and not know the right term for it. Having a whole list of the terms or terms with links does not help them. Nancy Sculerati 12:56, 2 May 2007 (CDT)