[OWW-Discuss] Hello list! (I'm new)

[Julius Lucks]

>
> >
> > Interesting thoughts.  Basically it boils down to the target audience of
> OWW
> > which is more along the lines of professional scientists and students of
> > science rather than people casually interested in science.  Of course
> anyone
> > is welcome to read and re-use the content of OWW, but we require
> > registration so that we have a solid provenance link between content and
> who
> > wrote it.  This is because the information on OWW is primarily
> scientific in
> > nature - protocols, experimental plans, experimental data, etc.  We take
> > this very seriously because we want the integrity of the data and
> associated
> > discussion on OWW to be as high as possible.
>
> I see this point.
>
> On this topic, I was wondering if you have investigated the idea of
> community rating features? This is something that I have been
> considering for the 'Introductome', but don't know really if its a
> good idea or how to do it. Its kind of in the domain of 'scientific
> literature reform', but you can imagine a system whereby authors write
> / rate pages, and author specific ratings 'flow' through this network
> to determine some overall domain specific 'impact' of an article.
>

Yes - we have actually thought a lot about it.  We even got Reddit to create
oww.reddit.com, but it did not really take off (and it looks like it is down
- probably due to inactivity.)   We have been kicking around the idea for
about a year and a half, and it's current incarnation has to do with
publishing efforts on OWW.  See the recent SC blog post for that discussion:

http://blog.openwetware.org/sc/2008/02/03/what-would-be-your-top-5-priorities-from-a-new-style-publishing-system/


>
> > We also have a slightly different article model than wikipedia - rather
> than
> > having one page per topic, we really have one page per person per topic.
> > That is, multiple researchers working on the same topic will have
> different
> > views on the topic that should all be equally represented.  It makes
> things
> > different enough that we have to consider that when we talk about how
> OWW is
> > structured.
>
> That is good. Is this documented somewhere? Do you have policy that
> sets up this kind of article structure clearly? For example, for a
> given topic, I would like to see how many authors have contributed an
> article.


This is an anecdotal observation on my part  - not a hard and fast rule or
policy.  What you suggest is probably going to end up being implemented by
some sort of semantic wiki extension, but that still needs to be fleshed
out.  One of the things we need to work on in general is the 'sense of
community' in OWW so that people can easily find out who is working on what.

>
>
>
> >
> > Julius
> > OWW Outreach Chair
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > http://openwetware.org/wiki/User:Julius_B._Lucks
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> --
> hello
>



-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://openwetware.org/wiki/User:Julius_B._Lucks
--------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/oww-discuss/attachments/20080213/59346045/attachment.htm