[GET-Editors] questions on editing

[Barbara Ruef]

Thanks, Madeleine! Your explanation helps to assuage my worries.  :)

I'm heading out of town on a trip but hope to get back to some lunchtime
editing when I get back the following week.

Thanks,
Barbara


On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Madeleine Ball <mpball at gmail.com> wrote:

> Sorry for the late reply, I was very happy to hear about your interest
> in GET-Evidence! Hopefully the list will become more active as more
> people become involved.
>
> > I had a few quick questions regarding variant impact scores and how
> useful
> > an editor is if they mostly add publications and summaries.
>
> Just adding publications is definitely useful -- the first step in
> evaluating any variant is digging up papers, having that work already
> done by a previous editor is very helpful. Also, even simple additions
> are an incentive for others to participate and add more complicated
> analysis -- I know I'm more likely to become curious and try to help
> fill out an evaluation once someone else has started it.
>
> > I have to admit, I'm a bit cautious about adding variant evidence and
> > clinical importance data. Does everything edited by someone outside the
> main
> > research group get reviewed to make sure that nothing incorrect was
> added?
>
> Tom added a "curation" ability where some users can have curator
> status and "approve" a page. This hasn't been used much because we
> haven't had many outside editors -- a lot of them have been done by
> Church lab members. Having edits from other sources will encourage us
> to use and improve this curation system, and I'd actually appreciate
> edits from other people to give us an incentive to use it. So, don't
> worry too much about making mistakes -- human error is going to exist
> no matter the expertise level, we all occasionally misunderstand or
> misread a paper or figure (I know I have, and I've caught mistakes by
> others). The power of allowing anyone to edit means that we can
> quickly and easily fix those mistakes.
>
> I've had some experience with Wikipedia and I think GET-Evidence is
> very much inspired by that model, a lot of the rules and
> recommendations for Wikipedia hold true here. Wikipedia says "Be
> Bold": most people are more hesitant than they should be. Don't be
> afraid of large changes, act in good faith, having page histories mean
> that nothing is lost forever. Changes don't have to be large to be
> useful, every little bit helps, even minor additions like PMIDs for
> papers are a valuable addition. I think, like in Wikipedia, there can
> be a variety of useful editing methods -- some people might just go
> through a lot of variants and perform one type of action on them (in
> Wikipedia some people just format references, or just fix grammar,
> etc.), others might be specialists in a given disease, others might
> just edit things that they're interested in for personal reasons (e.g.
> the variant is present in their own genome). It's all valuable.
>
> Let me know if there's anything we can to do to help you with editing!
> I was unusually busy this week, I should be able to respond faster in
> the future.
>
>  Thanks!
>     Madeleine
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.arvados.org/pipermail/arvados/attachments/20110903/82f919c3/attachment.html>