In the push to ‘communitize’ annotation and curation, one journal, RNA Biology, is requiring submitters to add or update their RNA sequences on wikipedia. This article suggests that it’s working so far (update, link to the article added),
The first examples of this program in action are already online. The journal is hosting an open access paper that describes a family of RNA molecules found in nematode worms; a corresponding Wikipedia page is already in place. In good Wikipedia form, the phylogenetic analysis of these RNAs is dinged for not providing citations, while the article as a whole is flagged as having excess jargon. (The talk page hosts an interesting discussion of how much jargon can possibly be eliminated from a highly technical description like this.)
So far, everyone is happy with the results. A few scientists have started updating the scientific content of the RNA entries, while the usual Wikipedia denizens have helped out in terms of catching typos and improving the formatting. The people backing the project expect that it will be immune to some of the issues that plague other Wikipedia entries; Nature quotes one of the biologists as saying, “”We don’t think vandalism will ever be as much of a problem for a Wikipedia page on transfer RNAs as it is for a page on George Bush.”
And looking at that one entry, it does seem to. But I have a question, if researchers are soon required not only to submit and/or annotate in a database and to wikis and curate and annotate if they wish to publish, doesn’t this start to place an undue burden on researchers who already have grant writing, teaching, and more in addition to actual research? There does need to be a solution to the growing need for curation and annotation of data, it will be interesting to see if this is one solution that will hold.