Dear fellow bioinformaticians,
Although Wikipedia is sometimes frowned upon as an unreliable source for academics, I (like many others) use it frequently and found it helpful many times. Therefore, I think, it should be in our common interest that the information on our field is up-to-date and accurate.
However, I occasionally found articles to be not helpful and to make matters worse, edits seem not to be particularly welcome. For example, neither Nextflow nor Snakemake are supposedly notable scientific workflow systems and my extensive rewrite of the Nextflow article, for which I spent 6 hours of free time, got instantly flagged due to the suspicion of "Undisclosed payments" and will therefore likely be rejected. (as if anyone would dig into their pockets for better Wikipedia articles on open-source bioinformatic software, when there is already hardly any funding for its development/maintenance)
Therefore, I would like to ask for your help:
Have you encountered an article on a bioinformatic subject that you found particularly inaccurate or otherwise of poor quality? In that case please list it here, and maybe we can also find a few volunteers to improve it...a few edits would make for a nice New Year's resolution ;-)
I don't have experience with WikiPedia (I think I made small edits many years ago), but you shouldn't be so pessimistic about your edit. I believe the explanation you gave in the "user_talk" session is reasonable, and should be taken into account by other editors (or moderators?).
In addition, a naive Google Scholar search shows Nextflow and SnakeMake have more hits than some of the other workflows listed there, as, e.g., VisTrails.
Well, it was rejected again. If anyone fancies to revise the article and in particular cite some references for the importance of workflow systems in bioinformatics, this would be very welcome.