Talk:Wikipedia and OpenWetWare

I'm often in doubt whether to put some biology information in the Wikipedia or on OpenWetWare (OWW). To avoid duplication, the differences should be made clearer. -- Jakob Suckale 07:48, 24 October 2007 (CDT)

• Austin Che 08:32, 24 October 2007 (CDT): Seems that if you're in doubt, put the information on both. Or put them on to OWW as that means someone can move it to wikipedia at a later time.

Discussion of FAQ: how does OWW differ from Wikipedia

from OpenWetWare:FAQ/Editing#How_do_you_differ_from_Wikipedia.3F

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia intended to present facts on various topics with a neutral point-of-view. In contrast, OpenWetWare's mission is simply to promote the sharing of information, know-how, and wisdom among researchers and groups who are working in biology and biological engineering. Thus, protocols, how-to's, tutorials, courses, lab portals, and resource lists are all inappropriate for Wikipedia but are entirely appropriate for OpenWetWare. The types of general, encyclopedic information characteristic of Wikipedia may also be appropriate for OpenWetWare on certain pages (like consensus protocols). Use your judgment.

Anyone can contribute to Wikipedia and its content is usually geared to the general audience. In contrast, content on OpenWetWare is contributed by and intended for researchers in biology and biological engineering. We define researchers quite broadly and consider educators and students as part of the research community. We also take a reasonably liberal view of what constitutes biology and biological engineering in terms of content appropriate for the site. (If someone in the community would find it useful, then you can include it.)

Note that material cannot be directly transferred from Wikipedia to OpenWetWare because of a licensing conflict. However, content from OpenWetWare can be copied to Wikipedia. See OpenWetWare:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Copyrights for more information."

Discussion

• Some pages on the wikipedia get very close to lab protocols. The description is often more general but can be specific enough to actually use the method. Compare: wikipedia:Polyacrylamide gel, wikipedia:SDS-PAGE.
• Courses, tutorials, and how-tos are not suited for an encyclopaedia like Wikipedia. But we do seem to have a strong overlap with the Wikipedia project Wikiversity.
• I think to allow personal perspective and not rigorously enforce neutral point of view can be beneficial for information dissemination if used moderately. A plus of OWW.

-- Jakob Suckale 07:54, 24 October 2007 (CDT)

Any news on unblocking the barriers between GFDL and CC?

We have a really bad situation with the GFDL blocking free information flow to other like-minded projects as OpenWetWare. It seems to defeat its own purpose. There was talk about how to make these two license more compatible and to allow flow of free information at the Wikimedia conference. Does anybody know more about it? (see also OpenWetWare talk:Copyrights) -- Jakob Suckale 07:52, 24 October 2007 (CDT)