Comments on: Web 2.0: In defense of editors http://www.cshblogs.org/cshprotocols/2008/04/07/web-20-in-defense-of-editors/ Fri, 03 Sep 2010 14:27:57 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Joerg Kurt Wegner http://www.cshblogs.org/cshprotocols/2008/04/07/web-20-in-defense-of-editors/comment-page-1/#comment-16351 Joerg Kurt Wegner Sun, 01 Jun 2008 21:11:28 +0000 http://www.cshblogs.org/cshprotocols/2008/04/07/web-20-in-defense-of-editors/#comment-16351 Thanks for the open-minded discussion and sorry for my late reply, I am one of those spare-time guys and had little time, because I was very dedicated with my job (*big grin*). Anyway, enough excuses ... here are my comments. http://miningdrugs.blogspot.com/2008/06/science-editorial-social-or-both.html P.S.: I tried twice submitting comments with FireFox and it did not work, lets see if this one will now occur three times or not at all? Thanks for the open-minded discussion and sorry for my late reply, I am one of those spare-time guys and had little time, because I was very dedicated with my job (*big grin*). Anyway, enough excuses … here are my comments.
http://miningdrugs.blogspot.com/2008/06/science-editorial-social-or-both.html

P.S.: I tried twice submitting comments with FireFox and it did not work, lets see if this one will now occur three times or not at all?

]]> By: Old versus New http://www.cshblogs.org/cshprotocols/2008/04/07/web-20-in-defense-of-editors/comment-page-1/#comment-15838 Old versus New Tue, 08 Apr 2008 22:13:02 +0000 http://www.cshblogs.org/cshprotocols/2008/04/07/web-20-in-defense-of-editors/#comment-15838 [...] cesstrelle74 Web 2.0: In defense of editors: [Via Bench Marks] Ran into a few very interesting (and very different) articles last week, which I [...] [...] cesstrelle74 Web 2.0: In defense of editors: [Via Bench Marks] Ran into a few very interesting (and very different) articles last week, which I [...]

]]> By: Richard Gayle http://www.cshblogs.org/cshprotocols/2008/04/07/web-20-in-defense-of-editors/comment-page-1/#comment-15837 Richard Gayle Tue, 08 Apr 2008 21:42:47 +0000 http://www.cshblogs.org/cshprotocols/2008/04/07/web-20-in-defense-of-editors/#comment-15837 Old paradigm - filter (edit) then publish. Example - almost any journal/magazine. New paradigm - publish then filter. Example - almost any blogger or wikipedia. The filtering comes from all the eyes (or Technorati). The new approach favors putting something up quickly and then working for perfection. The old approach tried to reach perfection first. Both have their uses. Science will require more of the old approach, as it always has. A fuller understanding of Nature does require careful examination by well-qualified individuals. I would be very surprised if scientific publications ever left this as their main model. That said, where the newer approaches will be important is for the rapid dispersal of important research and its findings. This was the entire purpose of the Web when it was first developed at CERN in 1989. OA will be a large part of this because most scientists will want their work spread as far as possible. But good editors and excellent peer review will be a large part of any scientific writing for quite some time to come. Old paradigm – filter (edit) then publish. Example – almost any journal/magazine.
New paradigm – publish then filter. Example – almost any blogger or wikipedia. The filtering comes from all the eyes (or Technorati).

The new approach favors putting something up quickly and then working for perfection. The old approach tried to reach perfection first. Both have their uses.

Science will require more of the old approach, as it always has. A fuller understanding of Nature does require careful examination by well-qualified individuals. I would be very surprised if scientific publications ever left this as their main model.

That said, where the newer approaches will be important is for the rapid dispersal of important research and its findings. This was the entire purpose of the Web when it was first developed at CERN in 1989. OA will be a large part of this because most scientists will want their work spread as far as possible.

But good editors and excellent peer review will be a large part of any scientific writing for quite some time to come.

]]> By: David Bradley http://www.cshblogs.org/cshprotocols/2008/04/07/web-20-in-defense-of-editors/comment-page-1/#comment-15823 David Bradley Mon, 07 Apr 2008 17:06:52 +0000 http://www.cshblogs.org/cshprotocols/2008/04/07/web-20-in-defense-of-editors/#comment-15823 I have to agree, personally I feel that academics can aim for OA/OS in everything they do, but at some point in the process there will need to be an uber-moderator otherwise science will just become a subsidiary of Digg. db I have to agree, personally I feel that academics can aim for OA/OS in everything they do, but at some point in the process there will need to be an uber-moderator otherwise science will just become a subsidiary of Digg.

db

]]> By: David Crotty http://www.cshblogs.org/cshprotocols/2008/04/07/web-20-in-defense-of-editors/comment-page-1/#comment-15822 David Crotty Mon, 07 Apr 2008 15:59:37 +0000 http://www.cshblogs.org/cshprotocols/2008/04/07/web-20-in-defense-of-editors/#comment-15822 Daniel, I agree. You're going to end up with a hierarchy and editors no matter what you do. The question really is going to be how one chooses those editors. My experiences on Wikipedia (the example used in the article I quoted) has been that I'm not thrilled with the de facto editors of that site, neither their level of expertise, nor the seemingly random interpretation of deliberately vague rules. For a site like that, they've really self-selected, they do it because they're interested in doing it and enjoy it. That's well and good for them, but the question remains whether that's the best thing possible for the readers. Wikipedia seems to be more about community and process than striving for quality. And you're right on the difficulty of getting the model correct. There's a balance to be found in there somewhere. It's interesting, given the resurgence of things like Google's Knols as of late. Daniel, I agree. You’re going to end up with a hierarchy and editors no matter what you do. The question really is going to be how one chooses those editors. My experiences on Wikipedia (the example used in the article I quoted) has been that I’m not thrilled with the de facto editors of that site, neither their level of expertise, nor the seemingly random interpretation of deliberately vague rules. For a site like that, they’ve really self-selected, they do it because they’re interested in doing it and enjoy it. That’s well and good for them, but the question remains whether that’s the best thing possible for the readers. Wikipedia seems to be more about community and process than striving for quality.

And you’re right on the difficulty of getting the model correct. There’s a balance to be found in there somewhere. It’s interesting, given the resurgence of things like Google’s Knols as of late.

]]> By: Daniel Lemire http://www.cshblogs.org/cshprotocols/2008/04/07/web-20-in-defense-of-editors/comment-page-1/#comment-15820 Daniel Lemire Mon, 07 Apr 2008 15:50:51 +0000 http://www.cshblogs.org/cshprotocols/2008/04/07/web-20-in-defense-of-editors/#comment-15820 I agree that people who review papers and do other "editorial chores" are highly valuable. In fact, they are more valuable than the current system seems to think. However, social networks are editors do not oppose themselves. In fact, wikipedia is full of editors. As for the current system... To a large extend, we already have the "Man Gets Hit in Crotch With Football" phenomenon quite visibly in fields like Computer Science. See one of my post on this topic: http://www.daniel-lemire.com/blog/archives/2008/03/04/what-are-conferences-good-for/ In open source software, to make an analogy, you have people who package existing software and make it ready for use. They are usually the people who get paid directly for working on open source software. They do a great and very useful work. To a large extend, Linus Torvald acts as an editor for the Linux kernel. You can have both wikipedia and editors. You can have both people who earn a great living from their important work as editors, and a social network system. But finding the right model is hard. There is enough money to go around, but it does not get distributed properly. I agree that people who review papers and do other “editorial chores” are highly valuable. In fact, they are more valuable than the current system seems to think.

However, social networks are editors do not oppose themselves. In fact, wikipedia is full of editors.

As for the current system… To a large extend, we already have the “Man Gets Hit in Crotch With Football” phenomenon quite visibly in fields like Computer Science. See one of my post on this topic:

http://www.daniel-lemire.com/blog/archives/2008/03/04/what-are-conferences-good-for/

In open source software, to make an analogy, you have people who package existing software and make it ready for use. They are usually the people who get paid directly for working on open source software. They do a great and very useful work. To a large extend, Linus Torvald acts as an editor for the Linux kernel.

You can have both wikipedia and editors. You can have both people who earn a great living from their important work as editors, and a social network system.

But finding the right model is hard. There is enough money to go around, but it does not get distributed properly.

]]>