OpenWetWare:Information management/Protocol curators

From OpenWetWare

< OpenWetWare:Information management
Revision as of 12:38, 10 November 2006 by Jason R. Kelly (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision (diff) | Newer revision→ (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

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