User:Smokefoot

Teaching chemistry through Wikipedia
Thinking about using Wikipedia as part of your chemistry course? Doing so gives students experience integrating chemical knowledge and in copy-editing, both relevant to their professional development. In terms of implementation, here are my observations based on several years of experience.
 * The most important step is the selection of topics that allow students to contribute new content. The instructor should make sure that good general sources exist on the assigned topics, preferably reviews and textbooks.  A major part of the learning experience comes from students re-describing or summarizing what they read from these broad sources.
 * Learning Wikipedia techniques is almost irrelevant to the educating students. To this end, it can be useful for the instructor to set up new articles with examples of linking and reference format. Students can then readily add to this article, even without registering as a user.
 * Students should be graded on the quality of their content, not the quantity.
 * Peer review (by fellow students) is a joke, how can a fellow student critique an article on topics that they barely fathom, not to mention dealing with conflict of interest in grading their friends?
 * Steer away from toxicity, environmental, or safety aspects. Tons of content on such topics are readily Google-able. Students learn little from parroting this material and can be poor judges of quality sources.  Teach them chemistry - mechanisms, (bio)synthesis, structure, bonding, spectroscopy, reactivity, ...  Help them sort notable from non-notable aspects.
 * Bear in mind that editors at Wikipedia are not supposed to serve babysitters or graders for your class. Instructors need to be involved, but they could expect good cooperation from established editors.

WP:SECONDARY for technical editing: three reasons to follow this guideline
For technical articles, an important editing guideline is WP:SECONDARY. All editors cite primary sources, but conscientious editors rely more heavily on general sources. Why? Three reasons. 1) Unless you are a real expert on the area you are editing, it is presumptuous to cite primary reference. Why that one paper in lieu of hundreds or thousands of others?  Citing primary references risks violating WP:UNDUE, i.e. overemphasis on a narrow result that distorts the big picture and WP:RECENTISM ('I don't know the background, but I found this nifty article today ...'). 2) Second, Wikipedia recommends reliance on secondary sources, because Wikipedia is a bloody encyclopedia - we are not a journal! Start your own blog. 3) Excessive reliance on primary sources is uncool. Primary citations are often the hallmark of vanity editors (ya gotta read my paper), kids (don't know any better), and wanna-be scholars, who think that citing primary citations establishes their credentials as players, when it does the opposite.  The goal of referencing is to help readers, not the editor, by guiding reader to digested sources of information that offer broad perspective.

'''Again most technical editors in Wikipedia are inexpert in the topics we edit. We demonstrate our good taste by selecting broad sources.'''

WP:COI (Conflict of Interest): Avoid citing yourself, your family, your friends, and your colleagues
Many (or most!) new or infrequent editors come to the Chemistry part of Wikipedia not to help the readership, but to cite papers by themselves, their family, or their friends. Such citations can show bad taste and potentially present a conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not the way to establish a scientific reputation - do that the old fashioned way - publish great papers in real refereed journals! If you want to help people understand chemistry and its role in our world, then Wikipedia is the place for you.

<!--===Editors, often infrequent, who only cite one researcher: Hall of CoI=== The phenotype: infrequent editor, cites work from one small group of authors, cites recent papers often in narrow journals, have no user page.
 * Peter Proctor prolific sockpuppet (fraudulent editor) see Sockpuppet investigations/Pproctor/Archive, other likely sockpuppets User:Looscan, User:Bigbuck, User:Fizicist, User:Cjbetti
 * User:Briefexact22 cites work from Hanaor and Sorrell from UNSW on oxides and alkoxides and many other conceivable other connections.
 * User:Shambra77 insistently cites his work on chromous acetate. Famous last words "I truly try to make Wikipedia better and broaden people's knowledge through this medium."
 * User:Mironov56's only edits? A large expansion of chloroauric acid. Guess the most cited author? Mironov, of course.
 * User:Jslipscomb favorite topic for editing? Daddy and things Daddy did.
 * User:Doureradjou P only edits: citations to... whom else Doureradjou et al!
 * User:LowLowKey only recorded edits, contributions to two articles to add reference to L. A. Kehrer, S. Winter, R. Fischer, C. Melzer, H. von Seggern
 * User:HRAPSU 21 self-citations in one article that he overhauled, one of two article he ever edited.
 * User:L.Sochava self-citation in his first and largest contribution: Off-center ions L.S. Sochava, V.S. Vikhnin, V.E. Bursian. Proc. of the XII Internat. Conf. on Defects in Insulating Materials, Nordkirchen, Germany, August 16-22, 1992, ed. by O.Kanert and J.-M.Spaeth, World Scientific Publ. Co, 1993, p. 390.
 * User:Pack Man only contributes to articles to cite work by R. Raines.
 * User talk:Cnsghkch only contributes to articles citing/praising work by I. Horvath. Claims "I am a keen advocate of Wikipedia."
 * User talk:128.123.232.211, traced to NMSU, cites Manz et al about 10 times in about 5 articles. Understandable why this editor wishes to remain unregistered.
 * User talk:Mgyannick creates Twibanire Esterification, an article about a couple of papers that are recent and rarely cited, and adds the same refs to ester. Upon my expressing concerns about [{WP:COI]] and WP:Notability, what happens?  Miraculously, two new editors - talk and talk-  appear on the scene solely to hale the virtues of this article.  These editors are experienced to comment on the technical quality, but their edits in other articles?  zip.
 * User:Halvagar creates Organogallium peroxides, about 30 edits, citing whom about 10 times? Himself!
 * User:SushobhanJoshi 14 edits to on boron nitride to say what? What else? to cite Joshi et al.
 * User:Pbird08 all edits to silcon nitride focus on primary citations to work by Webster, Rahaman, Bal and coworkers.
 * User:Irabias edits to cite rabias et al.
 * User talk:VLDUD, self proclaimed Vladimir I. Bakhmutov, who has only ever managed to contribute in a way that cites .... whomelse? Vladimir I. Bakhmutov!
 * User:T.E.Warner, cites only .... articles written by T. E. Warner et al.
 * User talk:Jcott80 "we added a reference"... but always the same authors are cited, an example of WP:REFSPAM
 * User:RaoInWiki. Only cites Rao et al.
 * Use:Joao.justo001
 * User:Mrislam.che cites only papers by M. Islam et al.
 * User talk:Maghemite cites a lot of papers from his research, but otherwise fessed up and hopes to contribute more widely
 * User:Robmot62. Suddenly arrives at the Wikipedia scene to do what? Cite many papers by Roberto Motterlini of course!
 * User:Glalwani06 cites only papers by Lalwani, Gaurav et al.
 * User:Vikkkuprabhu cite 4 refs to Prabhakar et al.
 * User:Emad.alefba cites only papers from the Simon group.
 * User:Karton_2014 loves to cite his Chemical Physics Lett paper.
 * User:Karbokation instructor from Dartmouth, promotes colleagues with peacock pages and now is leading a course on how to write for Wikipedia. The blind blinding the sighted.
 * User:Kondinski pushy editor whose grasp of inorganic chemistry includes .... publications by Kondinski et al.  Breadth and depth of knowledge?
 * User:Dr Forget the usual. Forget et al.
 * User:PaulMDrago, editor in chief of what? probably Daddy.
 * User:Gallium31, only cites work on gallium (natch), especially publications by Bernstein, Lawrence. Hmm-mm.
 * User:MaxBols, bursts onto the Wikipedia scene with edits to 4 or so articles. Citing who else?  Max Bols papers.  His commitment to enhancing Wikipedia or to enhancing Max?-->

About me
I mainly edit pages describing chemical compounds, especially inorganic, organometallic, and organic species. My favorites contain sulfur. I am a highly imperfect copy editor, so I am not bothered by having my English polished and especially welcome having my chemistry corrected.

My continuing focus remains on industrially significant compounds and boring topics like laundry detergents and waxes and related goopy stuff. Such themes are often overlooked since most editors are more familiar with academic topics, whereas our society and environment are more strongly influenced by the industrial-scale applications, for better or worse. Much of my content comes from Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, which appears to be authoritative and objective. Another interest is specialty reagents, with an eye toward increasing the value of Wikipedia for the synthetic chemist.

I am professionally associated with technical journals and book series, many of which are cited in my editing, but these relationships result in no financial rewards (unfortunately) to me. If editors have concerns that my edits "cross the line," please say so. Only rarely have I cited my own work or work by colleagues and friends.

What readers are reading

 * http://toolserver.org/%7Ealexz/pop/view.php, This tool shows the relative hit rate and quality rating of popular pages. A guide to what needs to be done.
 * http://stats.grok.se/en/201203/ This tool shows the hit rate for any article.

Templates, etc that I use


See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Chemistry_citation_templates
 * gives
 * gives
 * gives
 * gives
 * gives
 * gives Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, 2005, Wiley-VCH, Weinheim.
 * gives





What Wikipedia is and is not, and related comments
From What Wikipedia is not: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook or textbook.... a Wikipedia article should not read like a how-to style manual of instructions, advice (legal, medical, or otherwise) or suggestions..."

Citing primary literature: Wikipedia is not Chemical Reviews
Citations to the primary literature are generally not sought by Wikipedia. See WP:secondary source. Like other encyclopedias, Wikipedia seeks digested sources (reviews, monographs, texts). Chemical Abstracts Service (http://pubs.acs.org/cen/science/84/8448sci1.html; http://www.cas.org/expertise/cascontent/ataglance/index.html) abstracts many tens of thousands of papers annually. So citing the primary literature is almost impossible in a neutral manner and citing them all would ruin Wikipedia. Citations to the primary literature also invite problems with self-promotion. In the absence of more general sources, however, primary literature is a practical placeholder. I do replace primary references with broader sources, when I have the time.

Fluoride
Perhaps no element brings out stronger feelings than poor old fluorine. Water fluoridation is a theme of anxiety to small but vocal fringe groups and conspiracy theorists. A variety of articles have been created on this area, often to appease this constituency:
 * Fluoride therapy
 * Fluoride poisoning
 * Fluorine deficiency
 * Water fluoridation controversy
 * Dental fluorosis
 * Skeletal fluorosis
 * History of water fluoridation
 * Water fluoridation in the United States
 * Water fluoridation in Australia
 * Fluoridation by country

Government mandated iodization of salt does not bring out strong feelings.

Secret info about F-
Fluoride is a known brain washing chemical. It is the primary element in anesthesia. It is also used as a neurotoxin to kill rats in rat poison and it is used in pesticides on vegetation which is covertly aimed at poisoning the human population with the cover story that it is used to kill bugs eating vegetation while growing. The only "study" to support fluoride as a positive thing in dentistry isn't a study at all. It is propaganda developed by Alcoa, Rothschild's aluminum monopoly. Fluoride is used in removing aluminum from ore in aluminum processing and must be disposed of at great cost by the barrel as toxic waste, so Alcoa figured out they don't have to pay for safe removal of toxic waste (fluoride) if they brainwash the public into thinking fluoride is a consumable and sell it instead as an additive in toothpaste and water. The real reason it is in the toothpaste, water and pesticides is that we are born into captivity as humans and might figure that out if we weren't being kept in a sort of semi asleep and apathetic mental state from being exposed to regular doses of non lethal doses of anesthesia throughout our lifetime. The cumulative effect of this is a shorter lifespan, eventual dementia, osteoporosis, hypothyroidism and eventually --- death. Our 'masters' require us to have shorter lifespans because from their perspective this bodes well for continual covert slavery. If we lived to 130 without being dumbed down chemically, our elders would pass down the knowledge they had learned from discovering they had been duped and younger generations would have a chance to break free from slavery early and overthrow the powers that be.

More secret info about F-
The term fluoride is generally used to denote the compounds sodium fluoride or hydrofluoric acid, which are used in aluminum, nuclear and fertilizer manufacturing since the electrical charge of the fluorine atom is strong enough to help separate various ores from other elements such as aluminum. The resultant waste product, sodium fluoride or hydrofluoric acid is highly toxic to animal life, is used as a pesticide, used in conjunction with other elements to create anesthesia and is introduced illegally into the water systems and toothpastes for human consumption in order to calcify or more accurately fluorify the pineal gland or third eye used for perception of the human mind beyond the limited 5 senses; thus a primary weapon to continue the enslavement of humans. This just in: "Flourdie calcifies the pienal gland (3rd eye) in the human body".

Wikipedia knock-offs

 * BYJUS. Maybe based on Wikipedia and then embellished. []
 * Chemlibre. Slick and more polished than Wiki-chem but less detailed. Like processed food vs whole grain.[]
 * Khan Academy. Focused on testing for AP credit?  Limited elementary pchem focus. []

Small/simple form
To use, simply copy and paste the left column into the document, filling in whatever you can, or type and press save:

Useful reminders
WP:SELFCITE edit comments "Attribution: content in this section was copied from xyz on June 3, 2017. Please see the history of that page for full attribution"

Frontiers Media. Junk journal.

| BoilingPt_notes = 50 mmHg

Help:Introduction to tables with Wiki Markup/2

Template:Chem2

Formula punctuation
 ^ If the last character of the template input is, MediaWiki will confuse it with the end-of-template tag. Adding a space between the two resolves this ambiguity. Other options include instead inserting  or.

Formulas, charges, equations
Formulas (without charge) are just written:
 * &rarr; CH3(CH2)5CH3
 * &rarr; Fe3S2(CO)9
 * &rarr; C_{n}H_{2n+2}

Charges are written inside parentheses:
 * &rarr; SO4(2-)
 * &rarr; S19(2+)

Charges +1 and &minus;1 can be written plain:
 * &rarr; Na+
 * &rarr; O2-
 * equals

Chemical equations: The arrows can be written as  or just. All characters (and unicode markup) are valid input except, = (Mediawiki use it),   and   (endash etc.)
 * &rarr; 2 S + 3 O2 + 2 H2O -> 2 H2SO4
 * &rarr; 2S + 3O2 + 2H2O -> 2H2SO4
 * &rarr; 2 H2_{(g)} + O2_{(g)} -> 2H2O_{(g)}
 * &rarr; NH2RCHCO2H <-> NH3+RCHCO2-

Hapticity and mu:
 * &rarr; W(CO)3(PiPr3)2(\h{2}H2)
 * &rarr; W(CO)3(PiPr3)2(\h{2}H2)

Red flag words, phrases, etc.
Well intentioned perhaps, but these words and phrases are usually unhelpful in this encyclopedia:
 * Successful", etc ."The data were successfully recorded". Better: "The data were recorded"
 * "Researchers" report that A gives B..." pretentious and semi-obvious. Better:  "A gives B...[ref]"
 * "Recently" (that word goes stale fast!)
 * "At the University of ..." WP:BOOSTERISM
 * "Different" (vs what?) "diverse" or "various"
 * "Interesting", in the eyes of the beholder
 * "clear solution.." thats what solutions are
 * "pure compound", what other kind of "compound" is there?

Useless attention magnets
Attracting regular editing attention, many of these compounds have some or all of these characteristics: not used for anything, weakly characterized:
 * Fluoroantimonic acid
 * Dimanganese heptoxide
 * titanic acid
 * xenon hexafluoroplatinate