[WikiEN-l] What is happening to the community

[Ray Saintonge]

geni wrote:
> On 07/03/2008, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>   
>> geni wrote:
>>  > On 07/03/2008, Kurt Maxwell Weber <kmw at armory.com> wrote:
>>  >
>>
>>     
>>>>  > >  *"31 million CAS registry numbers have been allocated for chemical
>>>>         
>>  >>  > > compounds."
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  > We could do  with some lists, but an article on every compound is
>>  >>  > probably too much, when so little can be said for so many of them.
>>  >>
>>  >> No, it's not.  If it exists, it's a legitimate subject for an article.
>>  >>
>>  > How much do you know about modern organic synthesis?
>>  >
>>
>> A person interested in astronomy would probably have limited knowledge
>>  about organic synthesis.  He would go ahead with adding stellar objects
>>  without spending much time on organic chemicals.  He is able to admit
>>  that he knows nothing about organic chemicals, trusts that others are
>>  better versed in that subject, and lets them work in their own chosen
>>  field.  He does not limit his world view to what he can see from his
>>  closed box.
>>
>>  He peers out of his telescope and sees stellar objects named organic
>>  chemistry, pottery shards, and pop culture and does not pretend that he
>>  can reach out and affect the motion of those stellar objects.
>>     
> The problem is that due to modern organic techniques it is quite
> possible to create very large numbers of chemicals in a very short
> length of time. This is generaly used in combination with very narrow
> screening so unless you think "Chemical X does not inhibit cell
> function y" is a valid article you can't write articles on every
> single chemical. What you instead do is white about chemical families.
> You start with say bycyclo[2,2,2]octane then you have an article about
> the bycyclo[2,2,2]octane derivatives that contain biphenyls and then
> if there is enough info derivative of those. What you don't attempt is
> to write an separate article for every single chemical.
>   
Trust me, I'm not about to start writing up chemicals.  I don't know 
enough about them to work on that, and I need to trust others.  
Chemicals which are only theoretical possibilities without any record of 
their having ever been synthesized probably do not merit inclusion.  One 
can hypothesize that a basic carbon chain can include an infinitely long 
carbon string, but beyond some point it's only make-believe.

Ec