User:Vdiaz3/sandbox

'Summary of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia

To begin with, as an encyclopedia Wikipedia’s main objective is to provide information that is readily available for users to access. What it is not is some disorganized and messy bunch of information thrown together in no order at all.

The contributors of the information on Wikipedia make it a point to make sure that the information is not biased but instead written from an objective perspective. The main purpose is to provide information and not to advocate a particular view or stance. Also, information should be confirmable and readers should be able to follow-up with the references.

There is no one person who can claim ownership to the information provided in Wikipedia. It can be considered public domain. However, this does not mean that plagiarism or violation of copyright laws are allowed.

Because in Wikipedia there are multiple contributors constantly providing information and contributing, it is important to remember that even when different points of views are present the atmosphere should still be cordial and harmonious. If conflicts arise then resolution should be sought for the good of the community.

Finally, there is no set list of rules when it comes to Wikipedia. But in spite of this carelessness should be avoided especially when updating content.

Summary of characteristics of target article (Unit 4 Wiki assignment)

An article with a quality level between B and GA can be described as one that is on its way to being complete and truly useful to readers and users of Wikipedia. It’s moved beyond its initial stage and now it’s at the point where it needs things that are more about style and minimally about content at least overall. There may still be certain parts of the entry that need further work and additional and verifiable information. Summary of characteristics of target article: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Articleassessments.ogg (Accessed Feb 19, 2013).

Unit 7: Initial work on Pluripotency article
Key points that should be in the Wikipedia article for this topic:
 * Definition (the WikiPedia article already has the basics we can build on)
 * Cell types that display properties of pluripotency
 * Control mechanism(s) of pluripotent cells (what is known)
 * Pluripotency and stem cells
 * Induced pluripotency (iPS or iPSCs)
 * Pluripotent cells in vitro
 * “Self-renewal”
 * Therapeutic applications (regeneration etc.)

Potential high-quality references:

Wray et al. 2010. The ground state of pluripotency. Biochemical Society Transactions. Vol 38, 1027-1032. doi:10.1042/BST0381027 / http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.proxy1.library.jhu.edu/pubmed/20658998

Nichols, J. and Smith, A. 2012. Pluripotency in the embryo and in culture. Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a008128 / http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.proxy1.library.jhu.edu/pubmed/22855723

Jia et al. 2012. Regulation of pluripotency and self-renewal of ESCs through epigenetic- threshold modulation and mRNA pruning. Cell. Vol 151, Issue 3, Pgs 576-589. 10.1016/j.cell.2012.09.023 http://www.cell.com/cell-stem-cell/abstract/S1934-5909%2812%2900754-0

Okita, Y. and Nakayama, K. 2012. UPS delivers pluripotency. Cell. Vol 11, Issue 6, Pgs 728-730. 10.1016/j.stem.2012.11.009 http://www.cell.com/cell-stem-cell/abstract/S1934-5909%2812%2900643-1

Stadtfeld, M. and Hochedlinger, K. 2010. Induced pluropotency: history, mechanisms, and applications. Genes & Development. 24:2239-2263. doi:10.1101/gad.1963910 http://genesdev.cshlp.org/content/24/20/2239

Mooney, Bridget M.; Raof, Nurazhani Abdul; Li, Yan; Xie, Yubing (14 February 2013). "Convergent mechanisms in pluripotent stem cells and cancer: Implications for stem cell engineering". Biotechnology Journal. doi:10.1002/biot.201200202.


 * Vanessa - just so you know, I've added my comments about the article into the Group Project Talk Page. I believe this is where Dr. Ogg wanted us to put it.  Let me know if you'd like me to copy my thoughts here as well.

Aaron.aude (talk) 02:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Aaron. I'm actually pretty certain that this is where we are supposed to be posting for this unit just because the instructions specifically said "in a user sandbox page" and later describes "pick one of your team member's sandboxes in which to work...".  I went ahead and posted in my own sandbox specifically because I didn't see one for you.  So I'd actually recommend that you post those thoughts here.  Vdiaz3 (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Vanessa. No worries - here's what Dr. Ogg wrote.  I probably mis-interpreted it, "As a team, begin to research the topic of the article, identify key points that should be in the Wikipedia article for this topic. Discuss this on your group talk page."

Thanks! Aaron.aude (talk) 02:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh I see. Actually, it's a little misleading!  It begins saying to pick one of the team member's sandboxes in which to work but then it says to discuss on the group page.  And then it goes back to the sandbox page.  Vdiaz3 (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)