[Cz-biology] Auto-created articles about genes

[Dr. S N Sarbadhikari]

Dear Larry,
We have come back to a very basic question related to the growth of CZ. As
you have rightly pointed out, the initial pages may act as a "fork" but
the onus is on us to make sure that the CZ pages get filled up quickly and
correctly (with "gentle expert oversight" that's sadly lacking in WP). In
other words, we have to urgently recruit "active" experts (and
enthusiastic authors) who'd make sure that they can work with the academic
freedom which will not be available in WP. In fact, in this particular
case we can perhaps have a greater advantage than that we can achieve
against some of the failry well written extant articles in WP. We must
give it a try or later on may have to lament on losing out on a good
opportunity. Perhaps David or others can further enlighten us on this
issue. Even Andrew (without wearing the GNF hat) can give us some ideas.
Of course, the final decision (whatever be it) must be a well-thought out,
discussed, and majority one.
With warmest regards
Supten

> That's fine, but again, I would appreciate actual answers to my
arguments. I think the matter is rather complex.  I don't pretend to
have the final word, of course, but I would like to see some
acknowledgement of the difficulties involved in several issues, which I
raised.  Here's another (but again, it is only one): if both WP and CZ
*begin* with the same fairly
> detailed and identical articles, then isn't this essentially a fork of what
> could be a unitary scientific community effort?  It would be one thing if I
> were opposed to our sharing any articles at all about genetics,
regardless of provenance.  But the entire strength of my objection rests
on the fact that we are beginning with a large body of pre-made content,
something you don't really seem to make much of.
>
> --Larry
>>
>> I tend to agree with David. Whenever we need any specific information,
>> especially related to recent research activities, we try to retrieve
>> useful info from multiple resources (including WP where many pages do
>> provide a handful of very useful external links). Often PubMed alone
may >> not be sufficient. Therefore, if we preach "exclusivity" of
"freely
>> available authentic info", it may repel the potential
users/contributors >> of CZ.
>>
>> Active Editors in CZ can always ensure that dead wood is pruned and
>> saplings are adequately watered to make it far more authentic compared
>> to the same page in WP or elsewhere.
>> Regards
>> Supten