User:Daniel Mietchen/Talks/Integrating wikis with scientific workflows/Introduction: Difference between revisions
imported>Daniel Mietchen (+one more) |
imported>Daniel Mietchen (organization) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
::::::<blockquote>''The Internet represents an opportunity to change this system, one which has created a 300-year-old, collective long-term memory, into something new and more efficient, perhaps adding in a current, collective short-term working memory at the same time. With new online tools, scientists could begin to share techniques, data and ideas online to the benefit of all parties, and the public at large. ([http://orbitingfrog.com/blog/2009/06/16/open-science/ Robert J. Simpson], paraphrasing [http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/indepth/38904 Michael Nielsen])'' </blockquote> | |||
<blockquote> | |||
<blockquote><p style="margin-left:2.0%; margin-right:6%;font-size:0.99em;"><font face="Comic Sans MS, Trebuchet MS, Consolas">'''''What I wonder is why professors don't curate [pages on] Wikipedia and add course materials and open access sections of textbooks, much of which they post online anyways.''' We aren't really seeing the potential that you would hope for with all of the Web 2.0 tools out there. We aren't seeing the academic community take advantage of them as much as other subsets of the community.''</font><br /> [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/CBBresearch/Lipman/ David Lipman], quoted by Amy Maxmen (2010) [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=20434976 Science networking gets serious.] ''Cell'' 141 (3):387-9. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2010.04.019 DOI:10.1016/j.cell.2010.04.019] PMID: [http://pubmed.gov/20434976 20434976]</p></blockquote> | |||
Revision as of 19:03, 5 May 2010
Science is already a wiki if you look at it a certain way. It’s just a highly inefficient one — the incremental edits are made in papers instead of wikispace, and significant effort is expended to recapitulate existing knowledge in a paper in order to support the one to three new assertions made in any one paper.
What if everyone in the world were in your lab – a ‘hive mind’ of sorts, but composed of countless creative intellects rather than mindless worker ants, and one in which resources, reagents and effort could be shared, along with ideas, in a manner not dictated by institutional and geographical constraints?
There is but one journal: The scientific literature. (Richard Gordon)
While scientists have gloried in the disruptive effect that the Web is having on publishers and libraries, with many fields strongly pushing open publication models, we are much more resistant to letting it be a disruptive force in the practice of our disciplines. (James Hendler)
The Internet represents an opportunity to change this system, one which has created a 300-year-old, collective long-term memory, into something new and more efficient, perhaps adding in a current, collective short-term working memory at the same time. With new online tools, scientists could begin to share techniques, data and ideas online to the benefit of all parties, and the public at large. (Robert J. Simpson, paraphrasing Michael Nielsen)
What I wonder is why professors don't curate [pages on] Wikipedia and add course materials and open access sections of textbooks, much of which they post online anyways. We aren't really seeing the potential that you would hope for with all of the Web 2.0 tools out there. We aren't seeing the academic community take advantage of them as much as other subsets of the community.
David Lipman, quoted by Amy Maxmen (2010) Science networking gets serious. Cell 141 (3):387-9. DOI:10.1016/j.cell.2010.04.019 PMID: 20434976