October, 26 2012:
|
 Quality citations lend reputability to LIMSwiki content and confidence to readers. I try not to think of them that way. Rather, citations give the written content — whether it's about a LIMS vendor, an open-source software solution, or a piece of laboratory equipment — credibility, and they give readers more confidence in what they're reading. That said, I want to 1. remind users of the LIMSwiki citation guidelines and 2. offer a little help. I know for beginner wiki editors citations can be daunting. If after reading the guidelines you still need a little help, write a brief message on my talk page, and I'll help how I can. We might even be able to organize an online tutorial together.
Shawn Douglas 13:53, 26 October 2012 (EDT)
|
|
April 10, 2012:
|
The front page has received a facelift. A major complaint of the wiki so far has been that it's not terribly clear where to find the most usable material on the wiki at the moment. We've been so concerned with the content that other aspects have been taken for granted. Hopefully this front page overhaul makes it a bit easier to find the juiciest tidbits. As new material continues to be added, we'll be vigilant and update the front page as necessary.
Shawn Douglas 15:03, 10 April 2012 (EDT)
|
|
February 22, 2012:
|
 Thankfully data storage and analysis in the lab has gotten easier. It's strange to think it's been almost a year since it was introduced. Since then those with the time to spare have added a wide variety of infrastructure and some content. It has been a slow process, however, and like any major wiki project, more knowledgeable and dedicated editors are needed.
So what has been going on with the wiki? The initial focus was to get some of the major concepts like laboratory information management system (LIMS) and electronic laboratory notebook (ELN) documented at least up to a decent state of quality, with room for article improvement later on. Then a fair amount of effort went into documenting just who is selling LIMS, LIS, ELN, and CDMS. More infrastructure went into place for categories, and a method was put in place for vendors to include a knowledge base on the wiki. Most recently work has been done to track the features LIMS vendors publicly advertise for their LIMS and document them on each vendor page. That work — along with work detailing what each piece of LIMS functionality generally does — is still in progress.
As for the future, we hope to build a critical mass of people willing to help research, write, and cite information about all things laboratory informatics. The need for storing laboratory data, analyzing samples, and improving workflow will only become greater, and with that need comes a demand for clear and referenced information about laboratory data management and the laboratories that require it.
Best,
Shawn Douglas 15:57, 22 February 2012 (EST)
|
|
May 22, 2011:
|
 Genomics is only one branch of science that heavily depends on laboratory informatics. While researching modern vendors of laboratory informatics software, I stumbled across a post by LABVANTAGE's Terry Smallmon from earlier this month. In it he rightfully points out that while the nomenclature of laboratory informatics has historically had distinct subdivisions such as LIMS, ELN, and CDS, times are changing. The lines that differentiate a LIMS from a SDMS, for example, have blurred significantly, almost to the point where the nomenclature is losing its meaning in some cases. Smallmon also notes that as vendors take a more modular approach to laboratory informatics, the distinctions fade even more. Finally he points out that at least for him, determining what a potential customer needs shouldn't be based on nomenclature alone, but rather on the problem(s) a customer is trying to solve.
From my limited perspective, I can't disagree with Smallmon's observations. In fact, the blurred definition of laboratory informatics solutions is referenced in several cases among the major articles. However, I feel it important to emphasize that while definitions of these solutions may be blurring, a rough majority of vendors seem to continue using the nomenclature to describe their offerings. While I can understand the trepidation and skepticism behind trying to more appropriately define the industry nomenclature, the endeavor still seems a worthy one. Sure, we'll never have full agreement on the definition of any one term; however, by making the effort to coalesce the history of laboratory informatics, the industry should in theory have more cohesion.
As an outsider looking in, I perceive this to be a desirable goal. Laboratory informatics is an increasingly vital component of laboratories and scientific research. I recently was told a story from a programmer friend who works in genomics. He related that from his viewpoint, there's an increasingly large bottleneck between the amount of data being created in genomics labs and how it's stored and processed. This really struck home for me. As technology allows for better data collection, so should it allow for better storage and processing. And laboratory informatics is at the center of all of this. Faster and more efficient systems will be needed, and regardless of nomenclature, these solutions will solve problems.
That said, collecting the history and relevant information surrounding the field can only help unify the effort to create better solutions. The names and definitions of those solutions may change with time, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't make the effort. Just as we document the never-ending changes of language in dictionaries, so should we document the changes of the laboratory informatics industry. It's poised to play an important role in humanity's advancement.
Best,
Shawn Douglas 18:43, 22 May 2011 (EDT)
|
|
May 18, 2011:
|
Quick update: most of the work right now is going into the LIMS vendor, LIS vendor, ELN vendor, and other vendor pages. These vendor lists will have limited sort features and include information about vendors past and present. The biggest part of this effort is going towards researching if a particular vendor and/or laboratory informatics program is still active. Sometimes information is lacking to the point where we're unable to determine what happened to a vendor. These instances are being marked with a status of "unknown." The best-case scenario is that current and future wiki users can fill in the blanks where necessary.
Thanks,
Shawn Douglas 20:47, 18 May 2011 (EDT)
|
|
May 9, 2011:
|
We're beginning to close in on a month since the introduction of this wiki, and we're already at 142 articles. While most of them are article stubs, content has been appearing steadily to the wiki. It's the positive contributions of those familiar with laboratory informatics that will assure the continued growth and development of the content here. With a quick grasp of the wiki posting guidelines and how referencing works, anyone familiar with some sort of knowledge of the industry should be able to help with this wiki's content.
Much research and effort has went into important topics like LIMS and ELN, while the articles for LIS and SDMS may require additional relevant material and references. And of course there are plenty of "stub" articles that only have a sentence or two that will need more content. We're working to clean up a vendors page for specific industries and create a template to make it easier for vendors to begin an article about their company. There's also a promised walkthrough of wiki referencing in the works, so stay tuned.
For now please contribute how you can, and if you have questions, contact me on my personal talk page.
Thanks,
Shawn Douglas 17:07, 9 May 2011 (EDT)
|
|
April 28, 2011:
|
Please follow the previously posted title guidelines. The biggest problem is we shouldn't be capitalizing every word in a title unless it's a proper noun. Every article with this error must either be deleted and re-entered anew, or redirected to a new entry. This can take a considerable amount of work to correct.
Another thing to note is that when it comes to internal wiki links, we should only be linking the first instance of a term and not all subsequent instances as well. For example, an article talking about LIMS should only link the first instance, not all instances in the article. Otherwise a page gets very spammy.
Thanks,
Shawn Douglas 21:32, 28 April 2011 (EDT)
|
|
April 18, 2011:
|
For future reference, article titles with words should only have the first word capitalized unless there's a proper name included.
Also, plurals are frowned upon. For example the proposed title "Interface Groups" should be "Interface group" to meet naming conventions. I'm occasionally guilty of forgetting the naming conventions for wiki article titles also, so don't feel bad. Here are the naming conventions, listed from Wikipedia:
- Use lower case, except for proper names: The initial letter of a title is almost always capitalized; subsequent words in a title are not, unless they are part of a proper name, and so would be capitalized in running text; when this is done, the title will be simple to link to in other articles: Northwestern University offers more graduate work than a typical liberal arts college. For initial lower case letters, as in eBay, see the technical restrictions page. See also the special rules on capitalization in bird naming.
- To italicize a title, add the template {{italic title}} near the top of the article: Use of italics should more or less conform to these italics guidelines.
- Use the singular form: Article titles are generally singular in form, e.g. Horse, not Horses. Exceptions include nouns that are always in a plural form in English (e.g. scissors or trousers) and the names of classes of objects (e.g. Arabic numerals or Bantu languages).
- Avoid abbreviations: Abbreviations and acronyms are generally avoided unless the subject is almost exclusively known by its abbreviation (e.g. NATO and Laser). The abbreviation UK, for United Kingdom, is acceptable for use in disambiguation. It is also unnecessary to include an acronym in addition to the name in a title.
- Avoid definite and indefinite articles: Do not place definite or indefinite articles (the, a and an) at the beginning of titles unless they are part of a proper name (e.g. The Old Man and the Sea) or will otherwise change the meaning (e.g. The Crown).
- Use nouns: Titles should be nouns or noun phrases. Adjective and verb forms (e.g. democratic, integrate) should redirect to articles titled with the corresponding noun (Democracy]], Integration), although sometimes they will be disambiguation pages, as at Organic. Sometimes the noun corresponding to a verb will be the gerund (-ing form), as in Swimming.
- Do not enclose titles in quotes: Article titles which are quotes (or song titles, etc.) are not enclosed in quotation marks (e.g. To be, or not to be is the article title, while "To be, or not to be" is a redirect to that article).
- Do not use titles suggesting that one article forms part of another: Even if an article is considered subsidiary to another (as where summary style is used), it should be named independently. For example, an article on transportation in Azerbaijan should not be given a name like "Azerbaijan/Transportation" or "Azerbaijan (transportation)" – use Transportation in Azerbaijan. (This does not always apply in non-article namespaces: see Help:Subpage.)
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions
-Shawn
|
|
|
.jpg)
