Let me join in the chorus admiring the success of this years North Carolina blogging conference, ScienceOnline09. I had an absolute blast. It was a very different experience for me than last year’s event – I was just starting out as a science blogger then, wasn’t very familiar with the other blogs out there, had little clue about the various online applications for socializing, didn’t quite grasp all the fuss about a strange PZ person. Oh how things have changed.
Well, a year later, I get. Boy, do I get it. I have FriendFeed, I get the whole wiki business, and have the ScienceBlogs family down cold. I am all about social tagging, social networking, social everything.
It’s no surprise then that one of my favorite sessions this past weekend was one led by Andrew Su and John Hogenesch on Gene Wiki, a Wikipedia-based tool for community gene annotation. The brilliance of Gene Wiki lies in the combination of the popularity of Wikipedia and the knowledge held by thousands of researchers of sequenced but unannotated human genes. There is a glut of computer inaccessible information listed in the bodies of publications that can only be extracted by human readers. Gene Wiki allows the scientific community to annotate stubs, or Wikipedia page templates with basic computer-generated information about specific human genes, with information they may have generated or come across about that particular gene.
The result is an expert-generated resource that can be used by both scientists and the general public. As Andrew mentioned in the session, Wikipedia isn’t (and shouldn’t be) the last resource you check, but it does well as the first. It is a great starting point in a search, offering a concise definition and list of references to study further, and I freely admit to using Wikipedia quite often when setting out to write about unfamiliar (scientific) topics.
The only problem with Gene Wiki, as I see it, is the ease of use (or lack thereof) of the wiki format. While the display portion of the site is well-organized and clear, the back end editing tools are a bit of a usability roadblock. Most scientists are not the most computer savvy folks on the planet (understatement). Asking people to learn a funny “computer language” is a serious barrier to contribution. Happily, Andrew mentioned that Wikipedia is aware of these short-comings and may actually do something about it… timescale and route unknown, but it was nice to hear that it’s under consideration.
It felt really nice to be clued-in and to follow the discussion. More than that, I felt really strongly about the subject. I think Gene Wiki has the potential to generate a truly valuable resource, provided that scientists get hip to the wiki business like I did.
Most scientists are not the most computer savvy folks on the planet (understatement)
Perhaps they need to work on that, then. Look how good you feel about being “clued-in”! Also, you should probably replace “scientists” with “biologists”.
Asking people to learn a funny “computer language” is a serious barrier to contribution.
Yet people will readily learn new and difficult laboratory techniques if they think it will further their research. A little wiki syntax is no different – they just need to be convinced of the value.
Very good points, both. Totally agree that biologists are probably the most difficult bunch to move onto the web, followed closely by chemists. How does one convince biologists of the value of web applications? The difference between learning a new lab technique and a new web thingie is that the lab technique has direct and personal returns. The web thingie is slightly more amorphous, more often in the category of “common good.” Selling the web thingie as directly beneficial is the trick.
Anna, thanks for participating in our session, and glad you enjoyed it. FYI, here’s a link describing Wikipedia’s upcoming efforts to improve usability:
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2008/12/03/improved-usability-in-our-future/
… and I think your comment “Selling the web thingie as directly beneficial is the trick” exactly hit the nail on the head, and that’s our #1 goal with the Gene Wiki. If we succeed at that, all the other good stuff will follow…