Comments on: The Wonderful World of Wikis for Life Scientists http://sdbn.org/2010/06/14/the-wonderful-world-of-wikis-for-life-scientists/ sdbn.org Fri, 17 Dec 2010 15:52:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: Benjamin Good http://sdbn.org/2010/06/14/the-wonderful-world-of-wikis-for-life-scientists/comment-page-1/#comment-15496 Benjamin Good Thu, 08 Jul 2010 03:25:08 +0000 http://sdbn.org/?p=11822#comment-15496 I think its clear that there will and should be many wikis. Wikipedia is great for what it is but what it is isn't always what everyone needs. That being said, I think there are elements of Wikipedia articles that could be re-used in the context of other wikis. When there is already a great summary of a gene's function on its Wikipedia entry, another wiki or other website should be able to import that summary into their own context. Preferably other open editing platforms should also be allowed to contribute back to Wikipedia directly in a straightforward way. This kind of transfer already happens via cutting and pasting.. it will be a great step forward when the APIs that underlie wikis and related systems start intentionally supporting dynamic integration and thus stimulating a bounty of inter-related, non-redundant, purpose-built knowledge repositories. I think its clear that there will and should be many wikis. Wikipedia is great for what it is but what it is isn’t always what everyone needs. That being said, I think there are elements of Wikipedia articles that could be re-used in the context of other wikis. When there is already a great summary of a gene’s function on its Wikipedia entry, another wiki or other website should be able to import that summary into their own context. Preferably other open editing platforms should also be allowed to contribute back to Wikipedia directly in a straightforward way. This kind of transfer already happens via cutting and pasting.. it will be a great step forward when the APIs that underlie wikis and related systems start intentionally supporting dynamic integration and thus stimulating a bounty of inter-related, non-redundant, purpose-built knowledge repositories.

]]> By: Dan Gilliland http://sdbn.org/2010/06/14/the-wonderful-world-of-wikis-for-life-scientists/comment-page-1/#comment-14830 Dan Gilliland Sat, 19 Jun 2010 18:09:03 +0000 http://sdbn.org/?p=11822#comment-14830 Thanks for your article. It's been very helpful. Dan Gilliland Thanks for your article. It’s been very helpful.
Dan Gilliland

]]> By: Delmar Larsen http://sdbn.org/2010/06/14/the-wonderful-world-of-wikis-for-life-scientists/comment-page-1/#comment-14782 Delmar Larsen Fri, 18 Jun 2010 05:43:00 +0000 http://sdbn.org/?p=11822#comment-14782 The Wikipedia, as the central depository for all information, is a laudable goal, but this one-size-fits-all approach does not work for handling all requirements of knowledge transfer. For example, the primary goal of the ChemWiki is to supplant chemistry textbooks (to reduce educational costs and to provide flexibility for instructors course materials). The ChemWiki does not strive to be a "chemistry-pedia", which Wikipedia has mastered (somewhat). Our approach requires a different structure with aspects like clear flow between topics, consistency, redundancy in some part and secondary aspects like homework questions and exercises. This is a outside the current infrastructure of Wikipedia (as powerful as it is). There is a definite niche for non-Wikipedia Wikis to be supported. By the way, the ChemWiki (occasionally, but not often) ranks higher than Wikipedia in some Chemistry searches on Google. The Wikipedia, as the central depository for all information, is a laudable goal, but this one-size-fits-all approach does not work for handling all requirements of knowledge transfer. For example, the primary goal of the ChemWiki is to supplant chemistry textbooks (to reduce educational costs and to provide flexibility for instructors course materials). The ChemWiki does not strive to be a “chemistry-pedia”, which Wikipedia has mastered (somewhat). Our approach requires a different structure with aspects like clear flow between topics, consistency, redundancy in some part and secondary aspects like homework questions and exercises. This is a outside the current infrastructure of Wikipedia (as powerful as it is).

There is a definite niche for non-Wikipedia Wikis to be supported. By the way, the ChemWiki (occasionally, but not often) ranks higher than Wikipedia in some Chemistry searches on Google.

]]> By: Paul Gardner http://sdbn.org/2010/06/14/the-wonderful-world-of-wikis-for-life-scientists/comment-page-1/#comment-14769 Paul Gardner Thu, 17 Jun 2010 11:27:50 +0000 http://sdbn.org/?p=11822#comment-14769 There are many advantages to using/contributing directly to Wikipedia. There are lovely bots that will trawl through WP fixing citations (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Citation_bot_1" rel="nofollow">Citation_bot_1</a>), there are masses of people who spend a lot of time correcting spelling, grammar and fixing dead links (eg. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Woohookitty" rel="nofollow">Woohookitty</a>). With a free-standing wiki you miss out on these things as well as the famous extra long tail of editors who drop in, make a contribtution and then disappear again. Remember the top google hit for many scientific terms is now Wikipedia, therefore contributions there are going to be a lot more visible. Finally, the MCB wikiproject you mention is far from stagnant as you suggest. Look at the discussion page. There are many advantages to using/contributing directly to Wikipedia. There are lovely bots that will trawl through WP fixing citations (Citation_bot_1), there are masses of people who spend a lot of time correcting spelling, grammar and fixing dead links (eg. Woohookitty). With a free-standing wiki you miss out on these things as well as the famous extra long tail of editors who drop in, make a contribtution and then disappear again. Remember the top google hit for many scientific terms is now Wikipedia, therefore contributions there are going to be a lot more visible.

Finally, the MCB wikiproject you mention is far from stagnant as you suggest. Look at the discussion page.

]]> By: Mr. Gunn http://sdbn.org/2010/06/14/the-wonderful-world-of-wikis-for-life-scientists/comment-page-1/#comment-14696 Mr. Gunn Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:47:10 +0000 http://sdbn.org/?p=11822#comment-14696 The problem of redundant content falls in to the category of problems that are nice to have. It would be a very good thing if too much content were a bigger problem than not enough. It would also make a very good case for semantic markup, as that would allow an entry found on one wiki to be automatically imported to another, in the proper context. The problem of redundant content falls in to the category of problems that are nice to have. It would be a very good thing if too much content were a bigger problem than not enough. It would also make a very good case for semantic markup, as that would allow an entry found on one wiki to be automatically imported to another, in the proper context.

]]>