Hi Joel and Jaime - very nice to hear from you. I hope everything is going well in Rehovot.
Proteopedia is the natural place to put comments etc. However it might look more natural if there was more info there in the first place - ie if people gave more explanation about the significance of their and other people's structures, then comments like the one I suggested could be added. I don't know how you get people to become more active at Proteopedia. Maybe your students could post occasional messages to eg the CCP4bb with comments that show how useful Proteopedia can be. Tricky though! Best wishes, Patrick On 16 May 2014 14:35, Joel Sussman <joel.suss...@weizmann.ac.il> wrote: > 16-May-2014 > Dear Patrick, > *Proteopedia* [*http://proteopedia.org] <http://proteopedia.org%5D>* uses > exactly the same style for referencing published material. > > *Proteopedia* allows for the easy insertion of Pubmed and DOI references > by only requesting from the user to enter the Pubmed or DOI ids. We have > extended the same software used in Wikipedia for the internal > *Proteopedia* engine to, based on this reference ID, retrieve, format and > insert the correctly formatted reference at the bottom of the page. > > For example, *type <ref>PMID 18673581</ref> or <ref>doi > 10.1093/nar/gku213</ref>* in the wikitext box and save the page. If you > type the reference in this manner, the properly formatted reference will be > created automatically at the bottom of the page (or wherever you place the > necessary wikitext "<references/>"). > > See *http://proteopedia.org/w/Help:Editing#Citing_Literature_References > <http://proteopedia.org/w/Help:Editing#Citing_Literature_References>* and > Proteopedia pages for actual examples. > best regards, > Jaime & Joel > > On 15May, 2014, at 13:48, Patrick Shaw Stewart <patr...@douglas.co.uk> > wrote: > > > I may be missing something here, but I don't think you have to rebut > anything. You simply report that someone else has rebutted it. Along the > lines of > > Many scientists regard this published structure as unreliable since a > misconduct investigation by the University of Alabama at Birmingham has > concluded that it > was, "more likely than not", faked [1] > > [1] http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091222/full/462970a.html > > > > > > > On 15 May 2014 18:00, Nat Echols <nathaniel.ech...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Patrick Shaw Stewart < >> patr...@douglas.co.uk> 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 >> > > > > -- > patr...@douglas.co.uk 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 > > > -- patr...@douglas.co.uk 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
