OpenWetWare:Information management/Protocol curators

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: Con'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.
 * 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).

BC 12:51, 10 November 2006 (EST): This seems like a great topic to discuss. But what exactly is a curator?
 * Has responsibility for ensuring the details of the protocol are correct?
 * Is some well-known individual whose reputation/expertise is a stamp of approval in itself?
 * Has a casting vote in disputes over protocol details?
 * Is responsible for gathering any new specific protocols on the page?
 * Is willing to be contacted by people whose experiment doesn't work and is in a position to help them?
 * Is it the person who has contributed most to the page?

Marcus McHale 02:19, 23 April 2008 (EDT):Surely initially it will be the person creating the page then as experts (who care) join the discussion the responsibility will become shared/passed on?
 * Jason R. Kelly 02:41, 23 April 2008 (EDT): That sounds right to me.