Talk:Rosetta@home

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To-do list for Rosetta@home: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
    Peer review Rosetta@home has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
    		The tone or style of this article or section may not be appropriate for Wikipedia.
    Specific concerns may be found on the talk page. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions.(December 2007)

    Great work, really. -Tribaal 08:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


    Contents

    [edit] Public or Private Results

    I can't seem to find, and would love to see, a section on this page about who "owns" the results to the computations. It's a point of contention I have with all these projects. I'd feel like a chump if I was the one to contribute the results that led to some big-pharma corporate to patent the only cure to some disease. The results of these DC projects should be "open sourced" so to speak, shouldn't they? I think a disclosure of this information would be a useful part of this article.


    [edit] This page reads like an ad

    Someone did a lot of work expanding this page with tons of new information. However, currently the page is written like an ad for how great Rosetta@home is. This part sounds like a solicitation for donations: "Decoding the human genome may be the greatest scientific achievement of this century. But before that knowledge can be used, scientists need to take the research a step further — they need to understand the proteins that are built from our DNA. Proteins are the parts that make up the machinery of living cells." Or this: "By participating in the Rosetta@home Project, volunteers help verify and develop these revolutionary new algorithms." Ww.ellis 12:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


    [edit] Wikipedia is not a how-to guide

    I actually used the "How to join" section to install Rosetta@home on this computer. However, articles aren't supposed to read like instruction guides. Could any user suggest a way to rewrite that section to conform to style guidelines? --Grace 07:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

    Agreed. The 'how to join' section is not appropriate. Perhaps just a link to the project's how-to page would be acceptable. 129.64.68.20 19:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

    From my perspective (having written most of this page), the goal was to allow the Wikipedia reader to find the needed information as painlessly as possible. As the first poster said, he/she installed it per the instructions in Wikipedia. As long as it helps people, I don't see why it can't be kept. So, let it be for the moment please, thx. Dhatz 20:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

    Good work writing the page, but the section does need to be rewritten according to Wikipedia policy. Rather than the imperative "Install the program like this", it needs to have the descriptive tone of "This is how the program is used" - or it could be replaced with a link to the project's how to page as the second commenter said. --Grace 08:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    OK, could you point me to that Wikipedia policy? Also, which link to the project's how to page do you suggest to use instead (specific URL please)? Btw the prior poster didn't suggest, he simply DELETED the entire section. Dhatz 17:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    WP:NOT is a good start. On a sidenote, I think the 'how to join' section is ok, only needs a little editing.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk  16:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Copyright violation?

    I've noticed that this page uses large amounts of verbatim text from other websites: is the Wikipedia copyright policy being followed here? (Specifically, read section 4 - "Contributors' rights and obligations".) Mike Peel 10:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

    Please be specific about which sections you mean. Any verbatim text is quoted (with quote marks), indented, has a link to the original source at the end and has been copied over with permission. Dhatz 17:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

    I was referring to many parts of the page - basically every section which quotes more than a sentance from an external source. So long as the verbatim text has been copied over with permission from those with the copyright, then I don't think there's a problem. Mike Peel 19:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    Although it would be best if the Rosetta@home project would licence their contents under GFDL or CC or some other copyleft licence we could use.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk  16:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Project Signifigance could do with some rewording.

    ie. "Decoding the human genome may be the greatest scientific achievement of this century. But before we can...", sentances starting with "But". --FauxFaux 15:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Suggestions

    I suggest you should have a references section at the end of this article. Many of your statements have inline web-links which could readily be turned into references using {{tl:cite web}} or straight out <ref></ref> statements. Also: don't put links in the middle of sentences put them at the end. Reading the automated peer review will provide links to the relevant policies / preferences.Garrie 03:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Human proteome has ~400,000 proteins?

    The human proteome has ~400,000 proteins and there are more proteins in other organisms. Where you guys got 400k number from? It is less then 30k genes in in every given human being. So total number of significant proteins would be also less then 30 000. Even given that one gene can code for more then one protein it still would not make any difference since those genes relatively rare. On the other hand you can count human population as a whole counting every mutation as separate protein, this way you will end up having millions of proteins. But those one not a big deal since there shape would be very close to resolved ones and predicting shape from scratch, from amino acid sequence computationally will yield more errors in predicted shapes. The other possibility - count antibodies generated by human immune system would also give you millions of possible proteins. But those luck any sequence, so Rosetta could not help with them.

    This number - 400k for me sounds like a lie, simply made to justify project. 204.16.188.3 03:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

    • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteomics - >500k ? "In humans there are about 25 000 identified genes but an estimated >500 000 proteins that are derived from these genes." --82.152.213.208 20:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
      • In reality, there is billions of possible proteins that any given human body can produce. Check antibody article for example. But only ~25k proteins is fully hardcoded in a DNA. So, when you talking to public it is more of a matter what you want to emphasize - you technically will not lie saying almost anything giving careful selection of words. And, to complicate matter, there is way more than just proteins that define how our body is developing. RNA enzymes, or ribozymes and sugars are another examples. TestPilot 21:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)