It seems to me that the Wikipedia mechanism works wonderfully well. One rule is that you can't make assertions yourself, only report pre-existing material that is attributable to a "reliable published source".
It's immediately obvious when something is controversial. Here's the first para of the entry on statins, which are currently being debated in the UK: *Statins* (or *HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors*) are a class of drugs<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drugs> used to lower cholesterol <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholesterol> levels by inhibiting <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enzyme_inhibitor> the enzyme HMG-CoA reductase <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMG-CoA_reductase>, which plays a central role in the production of cholesterol in the liver<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liver>, which produces about 70 percent of total cholesterol in the body. Increased cholesterol levels have been associated with cardiovascular disease<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiovascular_disease> (CVD).[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statins#cite_note-1> Statins have been found to prevent <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preventive_medicine> cardiovascular disease in those who are at high risk. The evidence is strong that statins are effective for treating CVD in the early stages of a disease (secondary prevention <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_prevention>). The evidence is weaker that statins are effective for those with elevated cholesterol levels but without CVD (primary prevention<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_prevention> ).[2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statins#cite_note-NICEquick-2>[3]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statins#cite_note-Cochrane13-3> [4] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statins#cite_note-Cochrane11-4> Side effects of statins include muscle pain, increased risk of diabetes<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diabetes> and abnormalities in liver enzyme tests<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liver_function_tests> .[5] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statins#cite_note-Naci2013-5> Additionally, they have rare but severe adverse effects, particularly muscle damage.[6]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statins#cite_note-Jacob2011-6> Some doctors believe that statins are over-prescribed. (Could Proteopedia adopt a style that is closer to that?) On 15 May 2014 15:35, Bernhard Rupp <[email protected]> wrote: > Maybe a prominent link in the summary page of e.g. PDBe 2a01 would help. > > So far, you need to go there and expand Links -> pdb_redo -> links -> > Proteopedia to get to the corresponding warning. > > http://www.ebi.ac.uk/pdbe-srv/view/entry/2a01/summary_details.html# > > http://www.cmbi.ru.nl/pdb_redo/a0/2a01/index.html > > http://proteopedia.org/wiki/index.php/2a01 > > > > ‘More information about this (or any) entry may be available in > Proteopedia’ > > > > Best, BR > > > > Ceterum censeo structurae Murthius delendati erunt. > > > > (Marcus Tullius Raaijmakers) > > > > *From:* CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Joel > Sussman > *Sent:* Donnerstag, 15. Mai 2014 16:01 > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [ccp4bb] PDB passes 100,000 structure milestone > > > > 15-May-2014 > > Dear Martyn > > Proteopedia's (*http://proteopedia.org <http://proteopedia.org>*) goal > goes well beyond just education - it is aimed at Structural Biology and non > Structural Biology Community and it would be pleased to be a forum for > discussion of structures that are questionable. There are now over 2,600 > registered users, who are contributing to Proteopedia, in over 50 different > countries. > > *Proteopedia has a special area for discussions related to each > structure*. *To access it, you go to the structure's page, e.g. > http://proteopedia.org/w/2x24 <http://proteopedia.org/w/2x24>* and *click > on the 'discussion' tab* on the page's upper border. Everyone can read > the comments there, and it will open a fully editable page for every > registered user to add *their comments on the structure and their full > name will be listed below their comments.* > > If you would like to contribute to this, we’d be pleased to welcome > your input. > > Best regards, > > Jaime Prilusky & Joel Sussman > > > > > > On 15May, 2014, at 7:29, MARTYN SYMMONS < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > I agree some forum for community annotation and commenting would be a good > thing for users of structural data. > > There was an attempt to do that with the pdbwiki project which was a > community resource for the bioinformatics community. Unfortunately pdbwiki > has now folded (see http://pdbwiki.org/) They are now directing people to > Proteopedia. However Proteopedia has a more educative focus I think - > rather than capturing technical questions and input. > > > > Pubmed commons (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedcommons/), which is a > forum for discussing the literature, is currently under testing. Perhaps > this is the sort of thing that could work for structural data? > > > > cheers > > Martyn > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Ethan A Merritt <[email protected]> > *To:* [email protected] > *Sent:* Wednesday, 14 May 2014, 19:22 > *Subject:* Re: [ccp4bb] PDB passes 100,000 structure milestone > > > On Wednesday, 14 May, 2014 13:52:02 Phil Jeffrey wrote: > > As long as it's just a Technical Comments section - an obvious concern > > would be the signal/noise in the comments themselves. I'm sure PDB > > would not relish having to moderate that lot. > > > > Alternatively PDB can overtly link to papers that discuss technical > > issues that reference the particular structure - wrong or fraudulent > > structures are often associated with refereed publications that point > > that out, and structures with significant errors often show up in that > > way too. I once did a journal club on Muller (2013) Acta Cryst > > F69:1071-1076 and wish that could be associated with the relevant PDB > > file(s). > > Perhaps some combination of those two ideas? > > The PDB could associate with each deposited structure a crowd-sourced > list of published articles citing it. They already make an effort to > attach the primary citation, but so far as I know there is currently > no effort to track subsequent citations. > > While spam comments in a free-format forum are probably inevitable, > spam submission of citing papers seems less likely to be a problem. > > - Ethan > > > > On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Zachary Wood <[email protected] > > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > > > Hello All, > > > > > > Instead of placing the additional burden of policing on the good > > > people at the PDB, perhaps the entry page for each structure could > > > contain a comments section. Then the community could point out > > > serious concerns for the less informed users. At least that will > > > give users some warning in the case of particularly worrisome > > > structures. The authors of course could still reply to defend their > > > structure, and it may encourage some people to even correct their > > > errors. > > > > -- > Ethan A Merritt > Biomolecular Structure Center, K-428 Health Sciences Bldg > MS 357742, University of Washington, Seattle 98195-7742 > > > -- [email protected] Douglas Instruments Ltd. Douglas House, East Garston, Hungerford, Berkshire, RG17 7HD, UK Directors: Peter Baldock, Patrick Shaw Stewart http://www.douglas.co.uk Tel: 44 (0) 148-864-9090 US toll-free 1-877-225-2034 Regd. England 2177994, VAT Reg. GB 480 7371 36
