OpenWetWare:Information management/Protocol curators

From OpenWetWare

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
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.
------
------

Revision as of 11:59, 10 November 2006


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:

  1. Perceived credibility - someone putting their name on it implies that they are in some way vouching for the quality.
  2. Incentive - by putting your name on as curator you are more likely to do the hard work of collecting the information, etc.

Con's:

  1. 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).
Personal tools