In the current issue of Nature Genetics though, Massachusetts Institute of Technology-based researcher Robert Hoffman argues that scientists who write for wikis aren’t getting due credit for their work. While wikis like the one Huss and his colleagues have on Wikipedia are useful, he says, the individual contributions must be recognized.

In other words, contrary to the old adage, there does need to be an “I” in “Team”, especially when working in wikis.

Hoffman’s solution is to launch yet another gene wiki, this one creatively named WikiGenes. Unlike most wikis though, this one comes with the ability to attribute every line written to its author.

A scientist’s life isn’t just about satisfying curiosity and collaborating with others, says Hoffman in his commentary. Rather, it’s about “recognition by others, which translates to employment, grants, and ultimately, the privilege of being a scientist.” (See the recent post by 23andMe director Esther Dyson for another take on the significance of personal interest in science.)

To make sure each contributor gets his due, Hoffman’s WikiGenes has something called “authorship tracking technology.”  The software allows readers who like a particular line or phrase on one of the WikiGenes pages for, say, BRCA1, to identify the author and correctly attribute the quote to him or her. Theoretically this is also possible on Wikipedia, but there the authors are listed in the change log, which appears under a separate tab.

There are a few other differences between the Wikipedia-based gene wiki and WikiGenes.

Editing the WikiGenes site is fairly intuitive, which is good for first-time collaborators. Instead of having to go to the edit tab as on Wikipedia, WikiGenes has an “Edit this Page” option at the upper right corner of the page that allows registered users to make and save changes.

WikiGenes also has a demo account option where people can sign up and play with edit the content, though only changes made by registered users will appear on the site. This is probably a good thing; you wouldn’t want someone to edit the page on a gene as clinically important as BRCA1, for example, without having to sign their name to it. Still, it is a wiki and therefore an open-access and editable collaboration.

Perhaps the most glaring difference between Hoffman’s WikiGenes site and Huff et al’s gene wiki, however, is that the format isn’t as easy on the eyes  the WikiGenes entries don’t have colorful graphics to break up the text. Perhaps Lewis Carroll said it best at the beginning of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland : “Once or twice she had peeped into the book her sister was reading, but it had no pictures or conversations in it, ‘and what is the use of a book,’ thought Alice, `without pictures or conversation?’”

Photo credit: WikiGenes.org

ShareThis

Two years ago Stephen Colbert, host of the news-parody show, “The Colbert Report” coined the word “wikiality” to describe a reality defined by the majority.

“Nation, it’s time we used the power of our numbers for a real internet revolution,” Colbert told his audience. “Together we can create a reality that we can all agree on — the reality we just agreed on.”

Like Colbert, genetics researchers also hope Internet users will help realize their wiki vision — an online database with material sourced from the majority.

Earlier this month, Jon Huss III and his colleagues from San Diego State University, the Genomics Institute of the Novartis Research Foundation and Washington University School of Medicine outlined their proposal to develop a gene wiki on Wikipedia.

In a PLoS Biology paper, the researchers described their plan to create an online resource filled with content that can be read by all audiences, from lay people to students to professionals. And unlike extant gene databases such as Entrez Gene in which large tracts of information are submitted and edited by a few experts, they said, the entries in this database would come from a projected vast pool of volunteer contributors.

(On a side note, the gene wiki isn’t alone in looking for talented contributors of information about genes. 23andMe is looking for a full-time scientific curator — someone who can, among other things, sift through journal papers and help identify genetic associations of interest. For further information, check out the job posting here.)

Huss and his colleagues aren’t the first to think of a gene wiki, but they are unusual in going against the top-down approach by laying a foundation on Wikipedia. By the time their paper was published, they’d created entry stubs for 7,500 genes such as ITK, and updated entries for another 650, including BRCA1.

“Because articles are dynamic and not subject to rigorous peer review, the gene wiki is not intended to be a reference that is cited in a traditional peer-reviewed article or used exclusively as a source of gene annotation,” the researchers wrote.

Huss and his colleagues hope to involve a number of people, each taking a little time to enter and edit these gene entries on Wikipedia. One obvious question is how long it’ll take people unfamiliar with the site to learn how to contribute. Early feedback suggests the process may not be as intuitive as expected, and notes that participation is key for this effort to succeed.

But the researchers’ plan to develop a gene database that can be accessed and edited by anyone at any time also brings up the same issue that has dogged Wikipedia over the years: accuracy.

Wikipedia’s everyman-as-editor policy has led to some high-profile controversies such as the Siegenthaler incident, in which a retired journalist was falsely described on Wikipedia as being involved in the Kennedy assassinations. There have also been cases of political staffers editing the entries for their bosses — and their bosses’ opponents.

Stephen Colbert has played on Wikipedia’s multiple-editor feature as well, asking audiences to log in and change entries involving elephants, George Washington’s slaves and the true meaning of Warren G. Harding’s middle name.

Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales, who is delighted with the researchers’ plans to have the site host the gene wiki, has acknowledged that the online encyclopedia isn’t perfect.

“[Wikipedia] should be thought of as a work in progress — it’s our intention to be Britannica or better quality, and our policies and everything are designed with that goal in mind. We don’t reach that quality yet — we know that,” Wales said in December 2005.

Surprisingly, Wikipedia’s perceived Achilles heel is what also seems to be helping the online encyclopedia attain Wales’ stated goal. In allowing anyone to make changes at any time, the majority’s decision has final say, and it turns out that the majority favors accuracy.

A study conducted by the journal Nature compared the number of errors found in matching science entries from Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica, long regarded as the gold standard of references. The average Wikipedia entry had four errors; the average Britannica entry had three.

Wikiality, it seems, may not be that different from reality after all.

Still, for the gene wiki to become what the researchers envision, they’ll need informed people — lots of them — who are willing to log in during a coffee break or three, check out an entry or two, and make necessary edits and additions. They’ve built it; it’s time to see if the scientific community will come.

Image from: Huss et al, PLoS Biology 2008.

ShareThis