Talk:3D printing: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
→Anjan Contractor: new section |
||
| Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
==Popular culture section== |
==Popular culture section== |
||
Sorry if there already is one and I missed it somehow but is it possible that a section that shows 3D-printing in popular culture can be made here? [https://www.cgtrader.com/blog/3d-printing-in-popular-culture-a-new-character-is-born These] [http://www.smartprinting.co/3d-printing-news/3d-printing-in-popular-culture/ three] [http://disruptivemagazine.com/case-studies/702-2/ links] I found can maybe serve as decent first examples.[[Special:Contributions/195.67.78.50|195.67.78.50]] ([[User talk:195.67.78.50|talk]]) 10:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC) |
Sorry if there already is one and I missed it somehow but is it possible that a section that shows 3D-printing in popular culture can be made here? [https://www.cgtrader.com/blog/3d-printing-in-popular-culture-a-new-character-is-born These] [http://www.smartprinting.co/3d-printing-news/3d-printing-in-popular-culture/ three] [http://disruptivemagazine.com/case-studies/702-2/ links] I found can maybe serve as decent first examples.[[Special:Contributions/195.67.78.50|195.67.78.50]] ([[User talk:195.67.78.50|talk]]) 10:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC) |
||
== Anjan Contractor == |
|||
3D printing expert Anjan Contractor has contributed more than anyone to 3D printing technology with just rafts of press to document it. He should be on this page, at a minimum, under the food section.[[User:3Dnasa|3Dnasa]] ([[User talk:3Dnasa|talk]]) 06:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 06:14, 15 March 2016
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 3D printing article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
 | Technology B‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
 | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
 | This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Fall 2014. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Cornell University/Online Communities (Fall 2014)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Blakenyguen (article contribs).
 | This article is prone to spam. Please monitor the References and External links sections. |
|
||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
 | Guild of Copy Editors | |||
| ||||
3D or 3-D?
The two (3D and 3-D) seem to be used almost interchangeably, and a cursory glance at the references below suggests the same. Which spelling is correct? Or rather, which should be preferred in this article? 24.211.154.54 (talk) 03:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
History of 3D printing
Hello,
In reading the article, I've realized that there was no mention of "Alain Le Méhauté" and "Jean-Claude André". They apparently were the first to file the patent on the technology of 3D printing, before Chuck Hull (Even if it is the latter who has received paternity). Should we add this detail for the part of history of 3D printing ?
For example, in an article about : http://3dprint.com/65466/reflections-alain-le-mehaute/
Hello,
I informed you that I've done an edit of your section about STL files errors on 3D printing page. I add references, and I precised the possibles errors.
Sincerely,
R3sJAP155M (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
printing tissue
The content below was added in this dif, and I reverted it. My rationale is below. Happy to discuss.
3D bioprinting technology has recently trialled the production of human-scale tissue constructs.[1] The Integrated Tissue and Organ Printing System (Itop) uses a biodegradable plastic to provide the structure when combined with a water-based gel, which contains the cells and encourages them to grow. Lead researcher on the project, Prof Anthony Atala, said that tissues could now be printed on a human scale.[2]
- ^ Kang, Hyun-Wook; Lee, Sang Jin; Ko, In Kap; Kengla, Carlos; Yoo, James J.; Atala, Anthony (2016-02-15). "A 3D bioprinting system to produce human-scale tissue constructs with structural integrity". Nature Biotechnology. advance online publication. doi:10.1038/nbt.3413. ISSN 1546-1696.
- ^ editor, James Gallagher Health; website, BBC News. "Doctors 3D-print 'living' body parts". BBC News. Retrieved 2016-02-18.
{{cite web}}:|last=has generic name (help)
Can we please wait until this work is discussed in a review? Folks have been working on 3D printing of tissue for a long time, and claims of what is first" in the popular media are notoriously wrong and hype-y.
Knowing that people are keenly interested in health-related matters, the media loves to grab science news and pump it up — this sells newspapers and pulls eyes to TV shows and websites. This is something that has been happening more and more over the past thirty years or so, and is driven in part by the 24-hour news cycle and its hunger for stories. But the popular press is really, really unreliable for health news. For example, the BBC—very respected! —reported in 2011 that some Swedish surgeons had "carried out the world's first synthetic organ transplant". They put that in bold print at the top of their article. The problem is that this was dead wrong. Another team published an article in 2006 on their work with artificial bladders—work they started in 2001.
Likewise, many research articles in biology turn out to be dead ends, or unreplicable, or even withdrawn. (See Announcement: Reducing our irreproducibility from Nature, for example, which came after this and this were published). It is not that a review article somehow reaches backward in time and magically makes a research article more or less reliable; it is that you and i cannot know what research article will turn out to be replicable and/or accepted and built on by the relevant field, and which will not. Reviews tell us that. Here is an example of what we should not be doing. Remember that scientist who published work showing that if you shake cells (really!) you could turn them into stem cells? There was huge media hype around that. And yep, people rushed to add content based on the hyped primary source to WP. (Note the edit date, and the date the paper came out) only to delete it later when the paper was retracted. We should not be jerking the public around like that.
So can we wait until this is discussed in a review in the scientific literature please? Jytdog (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Popular culture section
Sorry if there already is one and I missed it somehow but is it possible that a section that shows 3D-printing in popular culture can be made here? These three links I found can maybe serve as decent first examples.195.67.78.50 (talk) 10:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Anjan Contractor
3D printing expert Anjan Contractor has contributed more than anyone to 3D printing technology with just rafts of press to document it. He should be on this page, at a minimum, under the food section.3Dnasa (talk) 06:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)