I agree with Nat. If you think a structure has a problem area, it is much easier to point it out to the users than to publish a rebuttal.
Comments are easy. Simply state your observation. If you are wrong in your assessment, I am sure you will receive a fine education from the more learned individuals in our community. And since this pertains to the entire PDB, I do not see a lot spam/noise being produced on a single structure. I would suspect almost nothing will be said regarding the majority of the 100,000 structures. I am not aware of a ton of spam being produced on the publications in the Pubmed Commons. In fact, it saddens me that no one has said anything significant about my publications. I personally would prefer to limit the feedback to those who deposit structures (similar to how Pubmed Commons limits comments to authors). I believe that we as a community are the ones best positioned to police the database. Best regards, Z *********************************************** Zachary A. Wood, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology University of Georgia Life Sciences Building, Rm A426B 120 Green Street Athens, GA 30602-7229 Office: 706-583-0304 Lab: 706-583-0303 FAX: 706-542-1738 *********************************************** Best regards, Z *********************************************** Zachary A. Wood, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology University of Georgia Life Sciences Building, Rm A426B 120 Green Street Athens, GA 30602-7229 Office: 706-583-0304 Lab: 706-583-0303 FAX: 706-542-1738 *********************************************** On May 15, 2014, at 1:00 PM, Nat Echols <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Patrick Shaw Stewart <[email protected]> > wrote: > 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". > > This rule would be a little problematic for annotating the PDB. It requires > a significant amount of effort to publish a peer-reviewed article or even > just a letter to the editor, and none of us are being paid to write rebuttals > to dodgy structures. > > -Nat
