Question: Is Anyone Still Curating Wikigenes Or Is Genewiki Now The Community Choice?
7
gravatar for cdsouthan
5.1 years ago by
cdsouthan1.8k
cdsouthan1.8k wrote:

Having spent some hours on a WikiGenes (WG) entry (http://cdsouthan.blogspot.se/2012/08/lactb-in-wikigenes.html) it now looks like GeneWiki (GW) has become the community default. Given that the bot seeding of WG was a bit of disaster this is not a surprise. Via twitter I have been encouraged to transfer my efforts to GW that I willl do in due course. However both iHOP and HGNC point to WG but UniProt points to GW. Entrez Gene points to neither. So who is curating into which?

gene annotation • 2.8k views
ADD COMMENTlink modified 4.8 years ago by Robert100 • written 5.1 years ago by cdsouthan1.8k
2

yes, GeneWiki is much more active these days. You should better contribute to it, rather than to WikiGenes.

ADD REPLYlink written 5.1 years ago by Giovanni M Dall'Olio26k
8
gravatar for Robert
4.8 years ago by
Robert100
Robert100 wrote:

WikiGenes ist still actively maintained and curated, however admittedly there are few people who have the motivation and stamina of a member of the International Society for Biocuration – thank you Chris for your excellent contribution!

A disclaimer – I could hardly be called objective because I have founded WikiGenes.

My goal was to create a new kind of resource that could embrace the potential of wikis and at the same time serve as rigorous scientific tool. Hence the emphasis on authorship attribution in WikiGenes to provide authors due recognition and to appraise origin, authority and reliability of information.

I have thought that such a tool could be a stepping-stone to a more interactive, collaborative and free form of scientific communication.

Of course the time for truly open scientific communication has yet to come, with the understandable resistance of big publishers stronger than ever. And yes, it is difficult to break the stronghold of conventional journals, with our careers depending so much on the 'publication record'.

Thus I am really happy about the success of Wikipedia and piggybacking GeneWiki!

For science (and other creative fields), however, I see Wikipedia only as an intermediate stage until the wiki potential takes off not only at the encyclopedic border, but also in the core of science.

Then, even the exchange of original and novel views in the forefront of scientific exploration should be possible in collaborative and open environments – and WikiGenes will be there :-)

In a more down-to-earth sense, I'd like to mention that WikiGenes covers all organisms (not just human) and is updated on a daily basis using text-mining to support the collaborative process in this stage.

Best of science everyone!

ADD COMMENTlink written 4.8 years ago by Robert100
6
gravatar for ben.mcgee.good
4.9 years ago by
ben.mcgee.good70 wrote:

It appears that WikiGenes is no more, the website has disappeared. For collaborative curation of information about human genes, the gene wiki (aka Wikipedia) is the right place to go. Also consider helping to get structured data about genes into WIkipedia's new WikiData. For example, here is the structured view of the gene product of Reelin. http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q13569356

ADD COMMENTlink written 4.9 years ago by ben.mcgee.good70
2

We did have maintenance problems in February 2014, but we really try our best to serve our community. And less than 5 days downtime in more than five years hopefully shows that.

ADD REPLYlink written 4.8 years ago by Robert100
Please log in to add an answer.

Help
Access

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.
Powered by Biostar version 2.3.0
Traffic: 795 users visited in the last hour