OpenWetWare:Information management/Protocol curators: Difference between revisions
From OpenWetWare
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
'''Topic: At the [[OpenWetWare:Steering committee/Meeting - November 2006|last steering committee meeting]], we discussed the [[Jamesh008:nature methods article|soon to be submitted Nature comment]] about OWW protocols. There was a fair bit of discussion about [[Help:Consensus protocol|consensus protocols]] in general, as well as whether having one (or several) listed editors/curators for a protocol is a good idea. Just wanted to start a discussion on the wiki about whether we want to have protocol curator(s) and the best way to implement it. | '''Topic''': At the [[OpenWetWare:Steering committee/Meeting - November 2006|last steering committee meeting]], we discussed the [[Jamesh008:nature methods article|soon to be submitted Nature comment]] about OWW protocols. There was a fair bit of discussion about [[Help:Consensus protocol|consensus protocols]] in general, as well as whether having one (or several) listed editors/curators for a protocol is a good idea. Just wanted to start a discussion on the wiki about whether we want to have protocol curator(s) and the best way to implement it. | ||
------ | ------ | ||
'''[[User:Jasonk|Jasonk]] 11:38, 10 November 2006 (EST):'''So some general pro/cons for having an editor/curator that came up are: | '''[[User:Jasonk|Jasonk]] 11:38, 10 November 2006 (EST):'''So some general pro/cons for having an editor/curator that came up are: | ||
| Line 14: | Line 13: | ||
Con's: | Con's: | ||
#Disincentive - by seeing someone else's name on a protocol I may be less inclined to improve it, because I think it "belongs to them" (e.g. I'd be changing someone else's work). | #Disincentive - by seeing someone else's name on a protocol I may be less inclined to improve it, because I think it "belongs to them" (e.g. I'd be changing someone else's work). | ||
'''[[User:Bcanton|BC]] 12:51, 10 November 2006 (EST):''' This seems like a great topic to discuss. But what exactly is a curator? | |||
*Has responsibility for ensuring the details of the protocol are correct? | |||
*Is some well-known individual whose reputation/expertise is a stamp of approval in itself? | |||
*Has a casting vote in disputes over protocol details? | |||
*Is responsible for gathering any new specific protocols on the page? | |||
*Is willing to be contacted by people whose experiment doesn't work and is in a position to help them? | |||
*Is it the person who has contributed most to the page? | |||
'''[[User:Marcus McHale|Marcus McHale]] 02:19, 23 April 2008 (EDT)''':Surely initially it will be the person creating the page then as experts (who care) join the discussion the responsibility will become shared/passed on? | |||
*'''[[User:Jason R. Kelly|Jason R. Kelly]] 02:41, 23 April 2008 (EDT):''' That sounds right to me. | |||
Latest revision as of 23:41, 22 April 2008
Topic: At the last steering committee meeting, we discussed the soon to be submitted Nature comment about OWW protocols. There was a fair bit of discussion about consensus protocols in general, as well as whether having one (or several) listed editors/curators for a protocol is a good idea. Just wanted to start a discussion on the wiki about whether we want to have protocol curator(s) and the best way to implement it.
Jasonk 11:38, 10 November 2006 (EST):So some general pro/cons for having an editor/curator that came up are:
Pro's:
- Perceived credibility - someone putting their name on it implies that they are in some way vouching for the quality.
- Incentive - by putting your name on as curator you are more likely to do the hard work of collecting the information, etc.
Con's:
- Disincentive - by seeing someone else's name on a protocol I may be less inclined to improve it, because I think it "belongs to them" (e.g. I'd be changing someone else's work).
BC 12:51, 10 November 2006 (EST): This seems like a great topic to discuss. But what exactly is a curator?
- Has responsibility for ensuring the details of the protocol are correct?
- Is some well-known individual whose reputation/expertise is a stamp of approval in itself?
- Has a casting vote in disputes over protocol details?
- Is responsible for gathering any new specific protocols on the page?
- Is willing to be contacted by people whose experiment doesn't work and is in a position to help them?
- Is it the person who has contributed most to the page?
Marcus McHale 02:19, 23 April 2008 (EDT):Surely initially it will be the person creating the page then as experts (who care) join the discussion the responsibility will become shared/passed on?
- Jason R. Kelly 02:41, 23 April 2008 (EDT): That sounds right to me.
