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:

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.

Con's:

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.