Reader Comments
Post a new comment on this article
Post Your Discussion Comment
Please follow our guidelines for comments and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
- Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
- Unsupported assertions or statements
- Inflammatory or insulting language
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
closenice, but too few links
Posted by GiovanniMDallOlio on 01 Oct 2010 at 09:52 GMT
This is a nice article, but I would have enjoyed an higher number of references to uses of wikipedia or wikis by the scientific community, and links to how to get started with editing wikipedia.
For me the biggest bottleneck in editing scientific articles in wikipedia is the need to learn the syntax and get used to the custom extensions used to describe scientific entries. For example, I don't know how to cite an article by its pubmed id or how to introduce informations on a protein. it seems that there is some form of common template or extension used to describe proteins, so apparently editing a scientific-related entry in wikipedia requires a deeper knowledge of the syntax than a normal entry. I would have liked to read a paragraph on this in the article, and some links to where this topics are explained, without having to search it by myself.
Moreover, you could have added some examples of the best scientific entries in wikipedia, or explain how it could be used by researchers.
p.s. Hail to the B1OS group :-)