OpenWetWare:Information management/Protocol curators

From OpenWetWare

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 5: Line 5:
------
------
-
 
'''[[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?

Revision as of 12:51, 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).

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?
Personal tools