Welcome to Codidact Meta!
Codidact Meta is the meta-discussion site for the Codidact community network and the Codidact software. Whether you have bug reports or feature requests, support questions or rule discussions that touch the whole network – this is the site for you.
My opinion about why there should be two medical sciences websites in the network
Modular approach is generally good in the long run and I think that there are two "modules" to modern medicine:
- Non-invasive (doesn't include surgery)
- Invasive (includes surgery)
I believe that if the network will contain Q&As about medical sciences the posts should be separated between such two websites.
It's quite hard to say where to draw the line between noninvaisve medicine to invasive medicine (for example, are injection-involved-therapies invasive or not? are laser treatments invasive or not?) but here is a nice opportunity to discuss this.
2 answers
You are accessing this answer with a direct link, so it's being shown above all other answers regardless of its score. You can return to the normal view.
So far, there isn't even one medical sciences site on Codidact, and although there is a Medical Science community proposal, there have been some very valid concerns raised in discussion related to that proposal that I don't see having been fully addressed.
Also, I imagine that your proposed distinction would be very hard to make in practice. Some things are clearly invasive, and some (a few?) are clearly non-invasive, but where to draw the line? For example, where should questions be asked about a non-invasive procedure performed in connection with and as a requirement for the safe performing of an invasive procedure? Injections are invasive to some extent, but generally not surgery; think vaccinations. And so on. The distinction between the two would be hard to maintain, even if there is enough traffic to justify the separation in the first place.
Not every subtopic needs its own site. Some can be lumped together, and tags offer filtering and searching on an as-needed basis. Some subtopics can be segregated with categories. Other topics might perhaps not even be appropriate for Codidact.
0 comment threads
Honestly, if you want Medical Sciences CD a reality, then perhaps make it a one-site community. Take for example my proposal on Videogames CD, where it contains 2 completely different categories:
- Q&A (Videogames), where questions would take the form about instructions on doing something (per-se Minecraft redstone tutorials) or Q&As of facts about those games.
- Game Development, where questions are all about the creation and design of making games, not exactly on par with the Videogames topic. There's also more topics that are also found in Game Development SE which will be added in the scope in Videogames CD if it were to exist.
They both represent videogames, but 2 completely different topics, so it's best if we separate them via categories. For example, Software Development CD has 2 categories apart from Meta:
- Q&A, mostly relating to questions about creating software and Q&A on tutorials of programming, especially how functions work and what to look for.
- Code Reviews, unlike Q&A, depends on reviewing code that already works as how you want it to be. The purpose for Code Reviews is to improve code you wrote.
Just like my proposal, this now-existing site represents software development, but 2 different topics. That's what the categories are for. In your case, it might fit to simply have Q&A in Medical Sciences CD since they're basically the same topic. It doesn't really matter if it has to be invasive or not, or maybe you can set those as tags. Who knows?
0 comment threads
1 comment thread