Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log in with Windows Live Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Submit your paper to J Biol Methods today!
Photo
- - - - -

How many of you actually contribute to online information libraries: Like Wikipe


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 metaltemujin

metaltemujin

    member

  • Active Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
1
Neutral

Posted 17 May 2011 - 05:43 AM

Since this is a forum filled with bio pipol and minions from all facets of biology, how much 'KNOWN' knowledge do you help upload on the net, like in Wikipedia?

:)

If you have done something, you can say what topic and what made you do it. If you haven't, why not? :P
Splice is the scariest Bio-tech based movie ever. People, don't be like the character in it.

"Don't mate with your creations at least, nature has provided you with plenty of options"


My most used quote: "You are annoying..."
My most used scientific quote: "This is annoyingannoyingannoyingannoyingannoyingannoying.....

#2 Trof

Trof

    Brain on a stick

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,198 posts
109
Excellent

Posted 28 May 2011 - 11:08 AM

I wanted a dozen times, but it always seemed like a lot of work to get it all right, almost as writing the paper and I hate writing. But some time ago I was looking something up some famous guy with a mutation in a gene I was working with and they had the wrong diagnosis there. I couldn't stand a completely wrong article and wanted to fix it and link to the appropriate diagnosis. But on the polycythemia page, this diagnosis wasn't even mentioned so I needed to edit it too, to contain detailed information to be linked to. At all it may have been like three or four edited sentences, but it took me more than two hours to be sure I got it all right and the code and everything. So that's my small contribution to date. :)

Our country has a serious deficiency in lighthouses. I assume the main reason is that we have no sea.

I never trust anything that can't be doubted.

'Normal' is a dryer setting. - Elizabeth Moon


#3 hobglobin

hobglobin

    Growing old is mandatory, growing up is optional...

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,523 posts
95
Excellent

Posted 29 May 2011 - 08:18 AM

For me it's similar, thought about it, ideas, but then no time and a good excuse:
A friend of me told me about his experiences. He wrote about his research field (whch was also part of his theses about something in organic chemistry), and changed and corrected quite a lot in the existing wikipedia text. Anyway another author then "corrected" most of his changes back to the former version. Then some see-saw changes, discussions and argument. But he finally didn't feel like doing it again and discuss it with a kind of troll. I guess this wikipedia chapter still has some more or less wrong content :lol:
And for me a good excuse not to start at all... :D
One must presume that long and short arguments contribute to the same end. - Epicurus
...except casandra's that belong to the funniest, most interesting and imaginative (or over-imaginative?) ones, I suppose.

#4 pito

pito

    Veteran

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,321 posts
80
Excellent

Posted 30 May 2011 - 12:49 AM

I takes too long with all that "programming langauge" , if it was just writing (like here) I would do it, but on wiki.. pfff.

+ as said here: the english version, you can change it, but they will often change it right back.

If you don't know it, then ask it! Better to ask and look foolish to some than not ask and stay stupid.


#5 lyok

lyok

    Veteran

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 206 posts
6
Neutral

Posted 30 May 2011 - 12:53 AM

For me it's similar, thought about it, ideas, but then no time and a good excuse:
A friend of me told me about his experiences. He wrote about his research field (whch was also part of his theses about something in organic chemistry), and changed and corrected quite a lot in the existing wikipedia text. Anyway another author then "corrected" most of his changes back to the former version. Then some see-saw changes, discussions and argument. But he finally didn't feel like doing it again and discuss it with a kind of troll. I guess this wikipedia chapter still has some more or less wrong content :lol:
And for me a good excuse not to start at all... :D

What subject was it then that he would like the change? And that moderator, was he then a researcher in that field too? Otherwise it would be weird.




Home - About - Terms of Service - Privacy - Contact Us

©1999-2013 Protocol Online, All rights reserved.