QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 8th July 2008, 2:07pm)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 8th July 2008, 5:52pm)
And once again, the media cannot distinguish between the words "Wikipedia" and "wiki".
I thought that at first, but they do seem to have added the content into Wikipedia.
See this for example.
Ah, that's interesting.
However, with reasoning like the following, I predict relative failure if left on Wikipedia:
QUOTE
...Wikipedia also have potential liabilities. Most notably, the completely open and anonymous nature of Wikipedia raises potential concerns about the completeness and accuracy of the articles, and in turn, the potential to recruit the broader scientific community to participate. We believe that the success of a gene wiki relies on the same foundation underlying the success of the rest of Wikipedia. Specifically, a simple editing syntax and a detailed version history for all pages enable effective collaboration and quick correction of incorrect or misleading content. A sizable population of readers then serves simultaneously as consumers, reviewers, and editors of content. Wikipedia has also managed to maintain an effective culture of collaboration by adherence to and promotion of its five core pillars (included in which is a code of conduct and maintenance of a neutral point of view) [20]. Finally, editors tend to add pages of interest to their “watchlist,†which highlights further changes to the article by other editors. Regardless of the specific reasoning, it is difficult to contest Wikipedia's success thus far in the breadth and accuracy of articles [8].
In addition, viable alternatives to Wikipedia exist. For example, a parallel gene wiki effort at Citizendium (http://www.citizendium.org) is also being considered, which, among other differences, requires authors to use real names and provides an explicit role for expert editors [21]. Despite potential concerns, this gene wiki project was initiated at Wikipedia to take advantage of the existing critical mass of articles that can be linked to and from gene pages, and for the critical mass of editors who are skilled in other aspects of online collaboration (copy editing, dispute resolution, governance, etc.) Although several other gene wikis already exist, none currently has access to a large user base and favorable search engine rankings of Wikipedia.
I can't wait to see the gene code for Rachel Marsden and John Siegenthaler, Sr.!