Macromolecular Modeling Blog ™

Are wikis the future of scientific collaboration in biology? 

The tremendous success of Wikipedia has raised the possibility of using wiki technology for scientific collaboration. However, it is not yet clear if traditional scientific methods can be acceptably incorporated into the ‘wiki’ paradigm. Despite this uncertainty, many tens of ‘scientific-wikis’ currently exist [1], with many more ‘annotation-wikis’ on the horizon. In this post we will discuss two key scientific concepts, and try to assess how they fit (or not) within the ‘wiki’ model. By Dan Bolser and Jong Bhak 

The purpose of most entries in Wikipedia is not to provide independent and novel findings, but to provide generalized and acceptable descriptions of problems and things. Issues such as originality and novelty have no place in Wikipedia, which actually forbids ‘original research’. Therefore, scientific-wikis have specific requirements beyond the scope of projects such as Wikipedia. Whether we are thinking about wikis for publication, review, or annotation, two key scientific principles lie at the heart of the associated issues.

Trust and Attribution

Trust and attribution are fundamental concepts in science. When reviewing a scientific model or a dataset, trust is the degree to which the assumptions of the model or the accuracy of the data are accepted. Lack of trust is not necessarily bad; what is important is that the degree of trust can be assessed and properly accounted for. This is where attribution comes in. Models and datasets are associated with specific groups of individuals through peer reviewed scientific publications. By carefully reviewing the published literature, scientists can make informed decisions about what new research to perform.

Trust is a large and important topic of research in the wiki community [2]. Scientific-wikis offer no general solution to the issue of trust beyond those discussed by this large community. All of the attempts to incorporate ‘trust’ (in one form or another) into wiki systems either implicitly or explicitly make use of attribution. For example, many scientific articles in Wikipedia are combined with copious references to publications. Some scientific-wikis simply list the authors of a page explicitly [3]. In this way it is hoped that ‘peer pressure’ will help to enforce high standards on the contributors and it allows the reader to judge the likely quality of the content. Other systems, such as WikiTrust, attempt to verify Wikipedia itself. WikiTrust uses a statistical analysis of the contributors and their contributions to define a visual ‘trust metric’.

In a wiki, there is no critical ‘editor’ who is in charge of the quality of an article. Instead, a collective editorial mind supervises quality. Most wiki systems do not provide rigorous peer review that can be used to evaluate scientific articles. It is important to point out that scientific education puts a strong emphasis on critical thinking. Critical thinking implies an ability to analyse information while taking an independent, ‘critical’ stance toward authority. Critical thinking applies equally well to material gathered from the scientific literature as it does to information available on wikis.

Credit

Publication in the scientific literature is currently almost the sole method of attribution in science. Published methods, if not necessarily trusted, can be critically judged and any published work includes a critical comparison to related methods, data and scientific models. Scientists build their career and reputation via publication and it is by this process that ‘the body of scientific knowledge’ is advanced. As a consequence, certain methods, data and models gain the trust of the scientific community and individual scientific output is recognized.

The existing peer review system has a clear distinction of the authors and reviewers. However, wiki systems involve voluntary and spontaneous contribution and review. The distinction between the two becomes less clear. The collective body of authors, readers, commentators, and peer groups can become a collective author of articles.

Interestingly, the issue of credit resolves itself spontaneously within Wikipedia. This happens via the emergence of peer groups within which the recognition of effort and expertise among individuals naturally arises. A good example of this process can be found in the Wikipedia Molecular and Cellular Biology (MCB) project. The project has an organizational structure that promotes discussion between contributors, leading to a high quality of peer review. It is important to note the effort of key individuals within these ‘spontaneous’ structures. Such highly motivated individuals can easily find ways to contribute and take up the challenge of leadership within the framework provided by Wikipedia [4,5].

Summary

For people who are familiar with the way Wikipedia works, applying the same model to the scientific domain seems like a natural suggestion, yet there are issues specific to science that are simply unknown in the Wikipedia model.

Typically, wikis do not enforce the same standards of trust and attribution that scientists are familiar with. However, the growing trend in turning wiki technology to ‘scientific’ purposes is pragmatically dealing with these issues, partly based on the guiding principles set down by Wikipedia, but with an emphasis on scientific principles accompanied by new functionality. Currently, contribution to projects like Wikipedia’s MCB are not widely ‘recognized’ as forms of scientific output. It may not be long, though, before ‘user contributions’ are regarded as equally important as publications in scientific journals.

The problem for most scientists is that wiki systems don’t clearly provide proper credit that they can claim for their scientific achievements. This is despite the fact that the wiki community essentially mirrors the broader scientific community of peers, within which recognition of individual effort does take place.

But if thought is to become the possession of many, not the privilege of the few, we must have done with fear. It is fear that holds men back — fear lest their cherished beliefs should prove delusions, fear lest the institutions by which they live should prove harmful, fear lest they themselves should prove less worthy of respect than they have supposed themselves to be.

— Bertrand Russell (Principles of Social Reconstruction)

About the authors:

Dan Bolser works as a Post Doc. at the University of Dundee. In his spare time he works on PDBWiki and MetaBase. 

Jong Bhak works as a director at the Korean BioInformation Center. He runs several ‘BioWikis’ including BioPeople, BioCourse, BioSpecies and BioPedia. “I am sure we can make a wiki that is actually creating knowledge. In the future, the internet will automatically search, annotate, organize, and synthesize knowledge. I want to be an architect for it.”

References

1.   For a community maintained list of ‘scientific-wikis’ in biology (BioWikis), please see, amend and update the BioWiki page in in MetaBase.

2.   Just Google the words ‘trust’ and ‘Wikipedia’ to get started!

3.   See, for example, the Contributors extension or the Contribution Credits extension.

4.   See a list of Wikipedias science portals.

5.   See Wikipedias biology wikiprojects.

Be Sociable, Share!

•