From bcanton at MIT.EDU  Fri Dec 14 08:46:51 2007
From: bcanton at MIT.EDU (Barry Canton)
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 08:46:51 -0500
Subject: [OWW-Discuss] Googlepedia?
Message-ID: <52c0d2160712140546p22d0ba09i6ab92e91771ac6cf@mail.gmail.com>

Google is testing a new project that sounds like an attempt to compete with
Wikipedia.
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/encouraging-people-to-contribute.html

An interesting sentence - "At the discretion of the author, a knol may
include ads. If an author chooses to include ads, Google will provide the
author with substantial revenue share from the proceeds of those ads."

-- 
Barry Canton
Endy Lab
Biological Engineering Division
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Tel.:(617) 401-7320 (Grand Central)
Email1: bcanton at mit.edu
Email2: bcanton at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/oww-discuss/attachments/20071214/f25864d0/attachment.htm

From rvidal at gmail.com  Fri Dec 14 09:59:25 2007
From: rvidal at gmail.com (Ricardo Vidal)
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:59:25 +0000
Subject: [OWW-Discuss] Googlepedia?
In-Reply-To: <52c0d2160712140546p22d0ba09i6ab92e91771ac6cf@mail.gmail.com>
References: <52c0d2160712140546p22d0ba09i6ab92e91771ac6cf@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <213fc43b0712140659x2bc0831ao7d5343aae17e278a@mail.gmail.com>

This could actually be a product of their acquisition of
JotSpot<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JotSpot>- a structured wiki for
small/medium sized businesses.

On Dec 14, 2007 1:46 PM, Barry Canton <bcanton at mit.edu> wrote:

> Google is testing a new project that sounds like an attempt to compete
> with Wikipedia.
>
> http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/encouraging-people-to-contribute.html
>
> An interesting sentence - " At the discretion of the author, a knol may
> include ads. If an author chooses to include ads, Google will provide the
> author with substantial revenue share from the proceeds of those ads."
>
> --
> Barry Canton
> Endy Lab
> Biological Engineering Division
> Massachusetts Institute of Technology
>
> Tel.:(617) 401-7320 (Grand Central)
> Email1: bcanton at mit.edu
> Email2: bcanton at gmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenWetWare Discussion Mailing List
> discuss at openwetware.org
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/oww-discuss
>
>


-- 
Ricardo Vidal
e: rvidal at gmail.com
w: http://my.biotechlife.net
skype: icky_bu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/oww-discuss/attachments/20071214/c3361427/attachment.htm

From bill.altmail at gmail.com  Fri Dec 14 10:30:53 2007
From: bill.altmail at gmail.com (Bill F)
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:30:53 -0500
Subject: [OWW-Discuss] Googlepedia?
In-Reply-To: <213fc43b0712140659x2bc0831ao7d5343aae17e278a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <52c0d2160712140546p22d0ba09i6ab92e91771ac6cf@mail.gmail.com>
	<213fc43b0712140659x2bc0831ao7d5343aae17e278a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <26428aaa0712140730k35b697dl5707c4d391ea25bd@mail.gmail.com>

In the Wikipedia world, people get compensated by having their words
represent topics they want to be known for understanding or being associated
with.  Or they may want to be more involved in a community that permits them
to edit the words of others or provide/limit access to those topics. Money
or position, to date, have not been relevant.

Google's pushing a more closed model in which people's content is paid for.
This is a more Wikia-like approach. Google is cutting out the middle-man. If
Google can charge less and provide access to more searchers, Google will
take business from Wikia.

I don't see Wikipedia impacted greatly by this. Google clearly wants to find
ways to starve the for-profit side of the Wikimedia Foundation of revenue .
This keeps Wikimedia from developing a search engine better than the present
one.

If Wikimedia, both Wikia and Wikipedia,  succeeds in keeping viewers from
navigating back to Google for searching, it will mean a lot of money and
increased control for Wikia. Alexa ranks Wikia at 580 now. But they grew 51%
in reach and over 250% in traffic in the last 3 months. Wikipedia hovers
around thr 8th highest ranked site. These are daunting figures.

Google still wants part of that growth for itself, despite the act that it
is also directly fueling Google's profits: all paid ads on Wikia are from
Google. Google is throwing relatively cheap R&D/operation dollars at the
issue. It's good business.


On Dec 14, 2007 9:59 AM, Ricardo Vidal <rvidal at gmail.com> wrote:

> This could actually be a product of their acquisition of JotSpot<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JotSpot>- a structured wiki for small/medium sized businesses.
>
> On Dec 14, 2007 1:46 PM, Barry Canton < bcanton at mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > Google is testing a new project that sounds like an attempt to compete
> > with Wikipedia.
> >
> > http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/encouraging-people-to-contribute.html
> >
> > An interesting sentence - " At the discretion of the author, a knol may
> > include ads. If an author chooses to include ads, Google will provide the
> > author with substantial revenue share from the proceeds of those ads."
> >
> > --
> > Barry Canton
> > Endy Lab
> > Biological Engineering Division
> > Massachusetts Institute of Technology
> >
> > Tel.:(617) 401-7320 (Grand Central)
> > Email1: bcanton at mit.edu
> > Email2: bcanton at gmail.com
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OpenWetWare Discussion Mailing List
> > discuss at openwetware.org
> > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/oww-discuss
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Ricardo Vidal
> e: rvidal at gmail.com
> w: http://my.biotechlife.net
> skype: icky_bu
> _______________________________________________
> OpenWetWare Discussion Mailing List
> discuss at openwetware.org
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/oww-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/oww-discuss/attachments/20071214/eb8f664c/attachment.htm

From bill.altmail at gmail.com  Fri Dec 14 10:52:08 2007
From: bill.altmail at gmail.com (Bill F)
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:52:08 -0500
Subject: [OWW-Discuss] Googlepedia?
In-Reply-To: <213fc43b0712140659x2bc0831ao7d5343aae17e278a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <52c0d2160712140546p22d0ba09i6ab92e91771ac6cf@mail.gmail.com>
	<213fc43b0712140659x2bc0831ao7d5343aae17e278a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <26428aaa0712140752wca77dd6q7c7c4bab81b8b9b9@mail.gmail.com>

In the Wikipedia world, people get compensated by having their words
represent topics they want to be known for understanding or being associated
with.  Or they may want to be more involved in a community that permits them
to edit the words of others or provide/limit access to those topics. Money
or external reputation, to date, have not been relevant. The recent
illustration compensation was the first direct attempt to attract
contributors with cash awards. The real money being made in the Wikipedia
world may be to consultants paid to adjust content in articles to favor
their client's specific agendas.

Google's pushing a model in which people's content is paid for. This is a
more Wikia-like approach. Google is simply cutting out the middle-man. If
Google can charge less and provide access to more searchers than Wikia,
Google will take business from Wikia.

I don't see Wikipedia impacted greatly by this. Google clearly wants to find
ways to starve the for-profit side of the Wikimedia Foundation of revenue .
This keeps Wikimedia from developing a search engine better than the present
one. A side benefit is that Google will deprive part of Wikipedia from
referrals based upon the quality of the content. Since Google alone knows
what they consider to be the best quality content, there will be some
weighting of referrals to their own wiki site. This maximizes Google's
revenue potential on the referral since Google knows that a Wikipedia
referral will never directly be monetized but one to a Google wiki may.

We'll never know whether this is happening since Google is 100% closed when
it comes to the "how" of their page ratings system or of its history. Would
Google ever choose to weight selections in favor of Google wiki pages that
have ads on them versus those which do not? It's hard to say. I would
suspect that their system will use internal semantic infrastructure that
will allow them to more precisely choose a page based upon pure relevance
than it does now on arbitrary web pages. If this is the case, Google will
always be able to show that selection is made on a knowledge content basis,
first and foremost. Will they surface how that knowledge is mapped? From
their perspective, this would only lead to more information for unscrupulous
advertisers use in gaming the system and ripping off Google and their
customers.

If Wikimedia, both Wikia and Wikipedia,  succeeds in keeping viewers from
navigating back to Google for searching, it will mean a lot of money and
increased relevance for Wikia. Alexa ranks Wikia at 580 now. But they grew
51% in reach and over 250% in traffic in the last 3 months. Wikipedia hovers
around thr 8th highest ranked site. These are daunting figures.

Google still wants part of that growth for itself, despite the fact that
Wikia's ad referrals also directly fueling Google's profits. All paid ads on
Wikia are from Google. Google is throwing relatively cheap R&D/operation
dollars at the issue. It's good business.


On Dec 14, 2007 9:59 AM, Ricardo Vidal <rvidal at gmail.com> wrote:

> This could actually be a product of their acquisition of JotSpot<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JotSpot>- a structured wiki for small/medium sized businesses.
>
> On Dec 14, 2007 1:46 PM, Barry Canton < bcanton at mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > Google is testing a new project that sounds like an attempt to compete
> > with Wikipedia.
> >
> > http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/encouraging-people-to-contribute.html
> >
> > An interesting sentence - " At the discretion of the author, a knol may
> > include ads. If an author chooses to include ads, Google will provide the
> > author with substantial revenue share from the proceeds of those ads."
> >
> > --
> > Barry Canton
> > Endy Lab
> > Biological Engineering Division
> > Massachusetts Institute of Technology
> >
> > Tel.:(617) 401-7320 (Grand Central)
> > Email1: bcanton at mit.edu
> > Email2: bcanton at gmail.com
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OpenWetWare Discussion Mailing List
> > discuss at openwetware.org
> > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/oww-discuss
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Ricardo Vidal
> e: rvidal at gmail.com
> w: http://my.biotechlife.net
> skype: icky_bu
> _______________________________________________
> OpenWetWare Discussion Mailing List
> discuss at openwetware.org
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/oww-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/oww-discuss/attachments/20071214/eff9e447/attachment.htm

From ilyas at MIT.EDU  Fri Dec 14 16:59:24 2007
From: ilyas at MIT.EDU (Ilya Sytchev)
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:59:24 -0500
Subject: [OWW-Discuss] Googlepedia?
In-Reply-To: <26428aaa0712140752wca77dd6q7c7c4bab81b8b9b9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <52c0d2160712140546p22d0ba09i6ab92e91771ac6cf@mail.gmail.com>	<213fc43b0712140659x2bc0831ao7d5343aae17e278a@mail.gmail.com>
	<26428aaa0712140752wca77dd6q7c7c4bab81b8b9b9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4762FCBC.20000@mit.edu>

The most important difference is that this new software is a knowledge 
representation (not a collaboration) tool.  A Knol is owned and can be 
edited only by its author (easy attribution and peer review, better 
access/license controls, etc) - which is completely different from a 
wiki article.  So, I think it may be more useful to scientists (as a 
platform for electronic lab notebook, for example) than a wiki.

Ilya

Bill F wrote:
> 
> In the Wikipedia world, people get compensated by having their words 
> represent topics they want to be known for understanding or being 
> associated with.  Or they may want to be more involved in a community 
> that permits them to edit the words of others or provide/limit access to 
> those topics. Money or external reputation, to date, have not been 
> relevant. The recent illustration compensation was the first direct 
> attempt to attract contributors with cash awards. The real money being 
> made in the Wikipedia world may be to consultants paid to adjust content 
> in articles to favor their client's specific agendas.
> 
> Google's pushing a model in which people's content is paid for. This is 
> a more Wikia-like approach. Google is simply cutting out the middle-man. 
> If Google can charge less and provide access to more searchers than 
> Wikia, Google will take business from Wikia.
> 
> I don't see Wikipedia impacted greatly by this. Google clearly wants to 
> find ways to starve the for-profit side of the Wikimedia Foundation of 
> revenue . This keeps Wikimedia from developing a search engine better 
> than the present one. A side benefit is that Google will deprive part of 
> Wikipedia from referrals based upon the quality of the content. Since 
> Google alone knows what they consider to be the best quality content, 
> there will be some weighting of referrals to their own wiki site. This 
> maximizes Google's revenue potential on the referral since Google knows 
> that a Wikipedia referral will never directly be monetized but one to a 
> Google wiki may.
> 
> We'll never know whether this is happening since Google is 100% closed 
> when it comes to the "how" of their page ratings system or of its 
> history. Would Google ever choose to weight selections in favor of 
> Google wiki pages that have ads on them versus those which do not? It's 
> hard to say. I would suspect that their system will use internal 
> semantic infrastructure that will allow them to more precisely choose a 
> page based upon pure relevance than it does now on arbitrary web pages. 
> If this is the case, Google will always be able to show that selection 
> is made on a knowledge content basis, first and foremost. Will they 
> surface how that knowledge is mapped? From their perspective, this would 
> only lead to more information for unscrupulous advertisers use in gaming 
> the system and ripping off Google and their customers.
> 
> If Wikimedia, both Wikia and Wikipedia,  succeeds in keeping viewers 
> from navigating back to Google for searching, it will mean a lot of 
> money and increased relevance for Wikia. Alexa ranks Wikia at 580 now. 
> But they grew 51% in reach and over 250% in traffic in the last 3 
> months. Wikipedia hovers around thr 8th highest ranked site. These are 
> daunting figures.
> 
> Google still wants part of that growth for itself, despite the fact that 
> Wikia's ad referrals also directly fueling Google's profits. All paid 
> ads on Wikia are from Google. Google is throwing relatively cheap 
> R&D/operation dollars at the issue. It's good business.
> 
> 
> On Dec 14, 2007 9:59 AM, Ricardo Vidal <rvidal at gmail.com 
> <mailto:rvidal at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     This could actually be a product of their acquisition of JotSpot
>     <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JotSpot> - a structured wiki for
>     small/medium sized businesses.
> 
>     On Dec 14, 2007 1:46 PM, Barry Canton < bcanton at mit.edu
>     <mailto:bcanton at mit.edu>> wrote:
> 
>         Google is testing a new project that sounds like an attempt to
>         compete with Wikipedia.
> 
>         http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/encouraging-people-to-contribute.html
> 
>         An interesting sentence - " At the discretion of the author, a
>         knol may include ads. If an author chooses to include ads,
>         Google will provide the author with substantial revenue share
>         from the proceeds of those ads."
> 
>         -- 
>         Barry Canton
>         Endy Lab
>         Biological Engineering Division
>         Massachusetts Institute of Technology
> 
>         Tel.:(617) 401-7320 (Grand Central)
>         Email1: bcanton at mit.edu <mailto:bcanton at mit.edu>
>         Email2: bcanton at gmail.com <mailto:bcanton at gmail.com>
> 
>         _______________________________________________
>         OpenWetWare Discussion Mailing List
>         discuss at openwetware.org <mailto:discuss at openwetware.org>
>         http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/oww-discuss
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     -- 
>     Ricardo Vidal
>     e: rvidal at gmail.com <mailto:rvidal at gmail.com>
>     w: http://my.biotechlife.net
>     skype: icky_bu
>     _______________________________________________
>     OpenWetWare Discussion Mailing List
>     discuss at openwetware.org <mailto:discuss at openwetware.org>
>     http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/oww-discuss
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OpenWetWare Discussion Mailing List
> discuss at openwetware.org
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/oww-discuss


From jasonk at MIT.EDU  Fri Dec 14 18:04:56 2007
From: jasonk at MIT.EDU (Jason Kelly)
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:04:56 -0500
Subject: [OWW-Discuss] Googlepedia?
In-Reply-To: <52c0d2160712140546p22d0ba09i6ab92e91771ac6cf@mail.gmail.com>
References: <52c0d2160712140546p22d0ba09i6ab92e91771ac6cf@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7c085c480712141504k64808700m71649e3108d49c17@mail.gmail.com>

Interesting, but I bet it falls flat.  Content with authorship
attached is all over the web already on blogs, forums, etc (and those
people already get $ for contributing that content through
advertising)  What makes Wikipedia into such a great resource is that
instead of getting an article written by a single author followed by a
hard-to-read chain of comments/corrections, you get the corrections
incorporated directly into the article.

The amazing thing that wikipedia proved is that you can get these
improvements/contribution without authorship (or without people
getting paid).  What's unknown is whether you could get mass
improvements/contributions if you pay people or if you have authorship
-- wikipedia would probably break if they introduced either of those
things.

will be interesting to watch
jason

On Dec 14, 2007 8:46 AM, Barry Canton <bcanton at mit.edu> wrote:
> Google is testing a new project that sounds like an attempt to compete with
> Wikipedia.
>
>
> http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/encouraging-people-to-contribute.html
>
> An interesting sentence - " At the discretion of the author, a knol may
> include ads. If an author chooses to include ads, Google will provide the
> author with substantial revenue share from the proceeds of those ads."
>
> --
> Barry Canton
> Endy Lab
> Biological Engineering Division
> Massachusetts Institute of Technology
>
> Tel.:(617) 401-7320 (Grand Central)
> Email1: bcanton at mit.edu
> Email2: bcanton at gmail.com
> _______________________________________________
> OpenWetWare Discussion Mailing List
> discuss at openwetware.org
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/oww-discuss
>
>


From bill.altmail at gmail.com  Fri Dec 14 18:27:56 2007
From: bill.altmail at gmail.com (Bill F)
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:27:56 -0500
Subject: [OWW-Discuss] Googlepedia?
In-Reply-To: <4762FCBC.20000@mit.edu>
References: <52c0d2160712140546p22d0ba09i6ab92e91771ac6cf@mail.gmail.com>
	<213fc43b0712140659x2bc0831ao7d5343aae17e278a@mail.gmail.com>
	<26428aaa0712140752wca77dd6q7c7c4bab81b8b9b9@mail.gmail.com>
	<4762FCBC.20000@mit.edu>
Message-ID: <26428aaa0712141527g4670b85cobb61df9785ded25f@mail.gmail.com>

This is pretty anti-wiki. It almost invites people to set up shop to 'own'
representation of an idea. Presumably, Google's software will display the
page when it's deemed appropriate.

I'll look at it in more detail when I have a chance.

B.


On Dec 14, 2007 4:59 PM, Ilya Sytchev <ilyas at mit.edu> wrote:

> The most important difference is that this new software is a knowledge
> representation (not a collaboration) tool.  A Knol is owned and can be
> edited only by its author (easy attribution and peer review, better
> access/license controls, etc) - which is completely different from a
> wiki article.  So, I think it may be more useful to scientists (as a
> platform for electronic lab notebook, for example) than a wiki.
>
> Ilya
>
> Bill F wrote:
> >
> > In the Wikipedia world, people get compensated by having their words
> > represent topics they want to be known for understanding or being
> > associated with.  Or they may want to be more involved in a community
> > that permits them to edit the words of others or provide/limit access to
> > those topics. Money or external reputation, to date, have not been
> > relevant. The recent illustration compensation was the first direct
> > attempt to attract contributors with cash awards. The real money being
> > made in the Wikipedia world may be to consultants paid to adjust content
> > in articles to favor their client's specific agendas.
> >
> > Google's pushing a model in which people's content is paid for. This is
> > a more Wikia-like approach. Google is simply cutting out the middle-man.
> > If Google can charge less and provide access to more searchers than
> > Wikia, Google will take business from Wikia.
> >
> > I don't see Wikipedia impacted greatly by this. Google clearly wants to
> > find ways to starve the for-profit side of the Wikimedia Foundation of
> > revenue . This keeps Wikimedia from developing a search engine better
> > than the present one. A side benefit is that Google will deprive part of
> > Wikipedia from referrals based upon the quality of the content. Since
> > Google alone knows what they consider to be the best quality content,
> > there will be some weighting of referrals to their own wiki site. This
> > maximizes Google's revenue potential on the referral since Google knows
> > that a Wikipedia referral will never directly be monetized but one to a
> > Google wiki may.
> >
> > We'll never know whether this is happening since Google is 100% closed
> > when it comes to the "how" of their page ratings system or of its
> > history. Would Google ever choose to weight selections in favor of
> > Google wiki pages that have ads on them versus those which do not? It's
> > hard to say. I would suspect that their system will use internal
> > semantic infrastructure that will allow them to more precisely choose a
> > page based upon pure relevance than it does now on arbitrary web pages.
> > If this is the case, Google will always be able to show that selection
> > is made on a knowledge content basis, first and foremost. Will they
> > surface how that knowledge is mapped? From their perspective, this would
> > only lead to more information for unscrupulous advertisers use in gaming
> > the system and ripping off Google and their customers.
> >
> > If Wikimedia, both Wikia and Wikipedia,  succeeds in keeping viewers
> > from navigating back to Google for searching, it will mean a lot of
> > money and increased relevance for Wikia. Alexa ranks Wikia at 580 now.
> > But they grew 51% in reach and over 250% in traffic in the last 3
> > months. Wikipedia hovers around thr 8th highest ranked site. These are
> > daunting figures.
> >
> > Google still wants part of that growth for itself, despite the fact that
> > Wikia's ad referrals also directly fueling Google's profits. All paid
> > ads on Wikia are from Google. Google is throwing relatively cheap
> > R&D/operation dollars at the issue. It's good business.
> >
> >
> > On Dec 14, 2007 9:59 AM, Ricardo Vidal <rvidal at gmail.com
> > <mailto:rvidal at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     This could actually be a product of their acquisition of JotSpot
> >     <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JotSpot> - a structured wiki for
> >     small/medium sized businesses.
> >
> >     On Dec 14, 2007 1:46 PM, Barry Canton < bcanton at mit.edu
> >     <mailto:bcanton at mit.edu>> wrote:
> >
> >         Google is testing a new project that sounds like an attempt to
> >         compete with Wikipedia.
> >
> >
> http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/encouraging-people-to-contribute.html
> >
> >         An interesting sentence - " At the discretion of the author, a
> >         knol may include ads. If an author chooses to include ads,
> >         Google will provide the author with substantial revenue share
> >         from the proceeds of those ads."
> >
> >         --
> >         Barry Canton
> >         Endy Lab
> >         Biological Engineering Division
> >         Massachusetts Institute of Technology
> >
> >         Tel.:(617) 401-7320 (Grand Central)
> >         Email1: bcanton at mit.edu <mailto:bcanton at mit.edu>
> >         Email2: bcanton at gmail.com <mailto:bcanton at gmail.com>
> >
> >         _______________________________________________
> >         OpenWetWare Discussion Mailing List
> >         discuss at openwetware.org <mailto:discuss at openwetware.org>
> >         http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/oww-discuss
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >     --
> >     Ricardo Vidal
> >     e: rvidal at gmail.com <mailto:rvidal at gmail.com>
> >     w: http://my.biotechlife.net
> >     skype: icky_bu
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     OpenWetWare Discussion Mailing List
> >     discuss at openwetware.org <mailto:discuss at openwetware.org>
> >     http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/oww-discuss
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OpenWetWare Discussion Mailing List
> > discuss at openwetware.org
> > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/oww-discuss
> _______________________________________________
> OpenWetWare Discussion Mailing List
> discuss at openwetware.org
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/oww-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/oww-discuss/attachments/20071214/8255ea32/attachment.htm

From rshetty at MIT.EDU  Sat Dec 15 14:16:06 2007
From: rshetty at MIT.EDU (Reshma Shetty)
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 14:16:06 -0500
Subject: [OWW-Discuss] blog authorship on OpenWetware?
Message-ID: <6e9f40380712151116g10fa311cp700b2d56995d1d4@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,

In perusing the blog community on OpenWetWare, I noticed that the blog
author or authors isn't featured very prominently or at all on OWW
blogs.  I was wondering what people thought of

1) Having a policy that all blog posts are "signed" attributable to a
single OWW user.  Again, similar to the policy on the main site
(http://openwetware.org/wiki/OpenWetWare:Username_policy), we'd push
for people to use their full publication name.

2) Featuring author names more prominently and linking those names to
OWW user pages (perhaps at the top with the blog title).

It seems that this policy would be in keeping with the norms of both
scientific publishing and what we've been moving towards on the wiki.

Thanks,

Reshma


From julius.lucks at gmail.com  Sat Dec 15 14:42:09 2007
From: julius.lucks at gmail.com (julius.lucks)
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 11:42:09 -0800
Subject: [OWW-Discuss] blog authorship on OpenWetware?
In-Reply-To: <6e9f40380712151116g10fa311cp700b2d56995d1d4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6e9f40380712151116g10fa311cp700b2d56995d1d4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <52160AB3-2F24-4658-BE64-97D74807F5CC@gmail.com>

Sounds great to me,

Julius

Please Reply to julius at younglucks.com

On Dec 15, 2007, at 11:16 AM, "Reshma Shetty" <rshetty at mit.edu> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> In perusing the blog community on OpenWetWare, I noticed that the blog
> author or authors isn't featured very prominently or at all on OWW
> blogs.  I was wondering what people thought of
>
> 1) Having a policy that all blog posts are "signed" attributable to a
> single OWW user.  Again, similar to the policy on the main site
> (http://openwetware.org/wiki/OpenWetWare:Username_policy), we'd push
> for people to use their full publication name.
>
> 2) Featuring author names more prominently and linking those names to
> OWW user pages (perhaps at the top with the blog title).
>
> It seems that this policy would be in keeping with the norms of both
> scientific publishing and what we've been moving towards on the wiki.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Reshma
> _______________________________________________
> OpenWetWare Discussion Mailing List
> discuss at openwetware.org
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/oww-discuss


From jasonk at MIT.EDU  Sat Dec 15 14:49:41 2007
From: jasonk at MIT.EDU (Jason Kelly)
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 14:49:41 -0500
Subject: [OWW-Discuss] blog authorship on OpenWetware?
In-Reply-To: <52160AB3-2F24-4658-BE64-97D74807F5CC@gmail.com>
References: <6e9f40380712151116g10fa311cp700b2d56995d1d4@mail.gmail.com>
	<52160AB3-2F24-4658-BE64-97D74807F5CC@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7c085c480712151149ve8335echb0f33bfafa3a0283@mail.gmail.com>

Yeah, I think this is a good idea.  I had been asking people to at
least identify themselves in their "About" page, but having it on the
front page by default would be better.

thanks,
jason

On Dec 15, 2007 2:42 PM, julius.lucks <julius.lucks at gmail.com> wrote:
> Sounds great to me,
>
> Julius
>
> Please Reply to julius at younglucks.com
>
>
> On Dec 15, 2007, at 11:16 AM, "Reshma Shetty" <rshetty at mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > In perusing the blog community on OpenWetWare, I noticed that the blog
> > author or authors isn't featured very prominently or at all on OWW
> > blogs.  I was wondering what people thought of
> >
> > 1) Having a policy that all blog posts are "signed" attributable to a
> > single OWW user.  Again, similar to the policy on the main site
> > (http://openwetware.org/wiki/OpenWetWare:Username_policy), we'd push
> > for people to use their full publication name.
> >
> > 2) Featuring author names more prominently and linking those names to
> > OWW user pages (perhaps at the top with the blog title).
> >
> > It seems that this policy would be in keeping with the norms of both
> > scientific publishing and what we've been moving towards on the wiki.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Reshma
> > _______________________________________________
> > OpenWetWare Discussion Mailing List
> > discuss at openwetware.org
> > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/oww-discuss
> _______________________________________________
> OpenWetWare Discussion Mailing List
> discuss at openwetware.org
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/oww-discuss
>


From rvidal at gmail.com  Sat Dec 15 14:54:00 2007
From: rvidal at gmail.com (Ricardo Vidal)
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 19:54:00 +0000
Subject: [OWW-Discuss] blog authorship on OpenWetware?
In-Reply-To: <7c085c480712151149ve8335echb0f33bfafa3a0283@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6e9f40380712151116g10fa311cp700b2d56995d1d4@mail.gmail.com>
	<52160AB3-2F24-4658-BE64-97D74807F5CC@gmail.com>
	<7c085c480712151149ve8335echb0f33bfafa3a0283@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <213fc43b0712151154o51a8d36fjc5649ec6624d6661@mail.gmail.com>

Yup, I agree.

I've been following all the OWW blogs since they were set up and I
definitely believe that they were a great idea. There is just so much more
outreach using the blogs. I've been loving Cameron Neylon's blog.

~Rick

On Dec 15, 2007 7:49 PM, Jason Kelly <jasonk at mit.edu> wrote:

> Yeah, I think this is a good idea.  I had been asking people to at
> least identify themselves in their "About" page, but having it on the
> front page by default would be better.
>
> thanks,
> jason
>
> On Dec 15, 2007 2:42 PM, julius.lucks <julius.lucks at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Sounds great to me,
> >
> > Julius
> >
> > Please Reply to julius at younglucks.com
> >
> >
> > On Dec 15, 2007, at 11:16 AM, "Reshma Shetty" <rshetty at mit.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > In perusing the blog community on OpenWetWare, I noticed that the blog
> > > author or authors isn't featured very prominently or at all on OWW
> > > blogs.  I was wondering what people thought of
> > >
> > > 1) Having a policy that all blog posts are "signed" attributable to a
> > > single OWW user.  Again, similar to the policy on the main site
> > > (http://openwetware.org/wiki/OpenWetWare:Username_policy), we'd push
> > > for people to use their full publication name.
> > >
> > > 2) Featuring author names more prominently and linking those names to
> > > OWW user pages (perhaps at the top with the blog title).
> > >
> > > It seems that this policy would be in keeping with the norms of both
> > > scientific publishing and what we've been moving towards on the wiki.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Reshma
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > OpenWetWare Discussion Mailing List
> > > discuss at openwetware.org
> > > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/oww-discuss
> > _______________________________________________
> > OpenWetWare Discussion Mailing List
> > discuss at openwetware.org
> > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/oww-discuss
> >
> _______________________________________________
> OpenWetWare Discussion Mailing List
> discuss at openwetware.org
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/oww-discuss
>



-- 
Ricardo Vidal
e: rvidal at gmail.com
w: http://my.biotechlife.net
skype: icky_bu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/oww-discuss/attachments/20071215/5da9cae4/attachment.htm

From jasonk at MIT.EDU  Sun Dec 23 09:49:04 2007
From: jasonk at MIT.EDU (Jason Kelly)
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 09:49:04 -0500
Subject: [OWW-Discuss] OWW on the MIT homepage
Message-ID: <7c085c480712230649t679d8d13ua97aab641c9adbb0@mail.gmail.com>

http://web.mit.edu/

happy holidays!
jason


From jasonk at MIT.EDU  Sun Dec 23 11:32:36 2007
From: jasonk at MIT.EDU (Jason Kelly)
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 11:32:36 -0500
Subject: [OWW-Discuss] OWW on the MIT homepage
In-Reply-To: <7c085c480712230649t679d8d13ua97aab641c9adbb0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7c085c480712230649t679d8d13ua97aab641c9adbb0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7c085c480712230832h3f8bf05ej80bb1a3665e00bd9@mail.gmail.com>

Updated the OWW homepage once I figured out where the image came from
(thanks natalie!).  The 20.109 class at MIT continues to get
increasingly cool, if other schools want to make color-changing
pictures out of material made from bacteriophage the content is all
freely available:

http://openwetware.org/wiki/20.109%28F07%29:Module_3

thanks,
jason

On Dec 23, 2007 9:49 AM, Jason Kelly <jasonk at mit.edu> wrote:
> http://web.mit.edu/
>
> happy holidays!
> jason
>


From ilyas at MIT.EDU  Sun Dec 23 15:30:40 2007
From: ilyas at MIT.EDU (Ilya Sytchev)
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 15:30:40 -0500
Subject: [OWW-Discuss] OWW on the MIT homepage
In-Reply-To: <7c085c480712230832h3f8bf05ej80bb1a3665e00bd9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7c085c480712230649t679d8d13ua97aab641c9adbb0@mail.gmail.com>
	<7c085c480712230832h3f8bf05ej80bb1a3665e00bd9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <476EC570.9040802@mit.edu>

Judging by the current server load, the traffic on the site has 
increased by a factor of two or three :)


Jason Kelly wrote:
> Updated the OWW homepage once I figured out where the image came from
> (thanks natalie!).  The 20.109 class at MIT continues to get
> increasingly cool, if other schools want to make color-changing
> pictures out of material made from bacteriophage the content is all
> freely available:
> 
> http://openwetware.org/wiki/20.109%28F07%29:Module_3
> 
> thanks,
> jason
> 
> On Dec 23, 2007 9:49 AM, Jason Kelly <jasonk at mit.edu> wrote:
>> http://web.mit.edu/
>>
>> happy holidays!
>> jason
>>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenWetWare Discussion Mailing List
> discuss at openwetware.org
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/oww-discuss


From johncumbers at gmail.com  Mon Dec 24 14:56:47 2007
From: johncumbers at gmail.com (John Cumbers)
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 14:56:47 -0500
Subject: [OWW-Discuss] OWW on the MIT homepage
In-Reply-To: <7c085c480712230832h3f8bf05ej80bb1a3665e00bd9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7c085c480712230649t679d8d13ua97aab641c9adbb0@mail.gmail.com>
	<7c085c480712230832h3f8bf05ej80bb1a3665e00bd9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <cfd758050712241156t3dc19273l2a9e17a7c4037a63@mail.gmail.com>

Awesome, we're planning a similar type of class for next semester at Brown,
so I'll look to include this,
happy holidays to all,
cheers,
JOhn

On Dec 23, 2007 11:32 AM, Jason Kelly <jasonk at mit.edu> wrote:

> Updated the OWW homepage once I figured out where the image came from
> (thanks natalie!).  The 20.109 class at MIT continues to get
> increasingly cool, if other schools want to make color-changing
> pictures out of material made from bacteriophage the content is all
> freely available:
>
> http://openwetware.org/wiki/20.109%28F07%29:Module_3
>
> thanks,
> jason
>
> On Dec 23, 2007 9:49 AM, Jason Kelly <jasonk at mit.edu> wrote:
> > http://web.mit.edu/
> >
> > happy holidays!
> > jason
> >
> _______________________________________________
> OpenWetWare Discussion Mailing List
> discuss at openwetware.org
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/oww-discuss
>



-- 
John Cumbers,  Graduate Student
Biology and Medicine
Brown University, Box G-W
Providence, Rhode Island, 02912, USA
Tel USA: +1 401 523 8190,  Fax: +1 401 863-2166
UK to USA: 0207 617 7824
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/oww-discuss/attachments/20071224/2063eedf/attachment.htm