I did not hear her talk about getting any credit, what she talked about was how to have an idea take off and make a difference. The reality is that great ideas do not take off and change the world by merely having one, they have to be sold to people. She simultaneously studied and came up with a way that works-through story. I have never heard someone speak so much from the heart, there was nothing even remotely about getting any credit. She changed her horrible life and that was how she did it.
solution: an established organization, like the academy of science, should start and maintain the wiki / database. That way we know it won't disappear. Then scientists and only scientists can contribute to it under their real names, however they wish. This way they can get credit for their work, and get credit where other scientists will see it. This also allows a measure of peer review, so we know the wiki will be of high quality. Thus it should be very useful as well.
i don't think it's so much about credit, people on wikipedia don't get credit either :) although, sure, some of it may be that. I think the main issue though is really about whether or not such a database will be of any use. Which this talk illustrates that typically, no, those wikis don't do anything. Now sure, this is a self-fulling negative prophecy. People don't expect it to do well, so don't contribute, and the project fails. But that's the real issue I think.
Hear what God of Israel YAHUSHUA-YAHUWAH (Son and Father are ONE) saying to our generation by His chosen prophets: Trumpetcallofgodonline. com ; Letter called "Purify Your Faith, and Come to the Father as It is Written": EXCERPT: "Only in the Bible and through these very Letters, of which I have given to My prophet of the end of this age, shall you find Him and know Him."
Prefering a personall carreer over the well being of the whole society is a typical cancerous mentality that capitalism has bread to us. We need a change.
Hipster Computer Science did open science before it was cool. Seriously, I'm glad Computer Science--free and open source software--has blazed a trail for the rest of science to follow. Let's roll.
I agree with sharing knowledge for the benefit of all and in the process reaching deeper insights than any scientist could alone.
That said I'm not hopeful that the culture will change. In order to change it a must larger change must first occur in the economic activity around it. That is to say because it is not financially profitable to share ideas, it's unlikely that such a change will take place in a timely manner if at all.
If only the wiki contributors were getting PAID for their time... maybe they wouldn't be so busy writing research papers in order to get a job that paid them for their work.
We should give out more government money for open source science so people with talent aren't stuck giving it away for free or whoring themselves out to pharmaceutical companies.
This is one very good reason why some scientists might be reluctant to go with this approach called the low hanging fruit phenamone. A scientist might fear that he might have a good idea, but never got around to developing it fully because he was doing something else (or even worse, some beaucratic administration task related to this first task).
This is frustrating enough when it happens by its own accord, but worse when I was the one who helped it materialize.
This is silly I mean it"s good to share information but every one knows whats will happen once a good idea is shared some one else takes the credit & it is usually some big company white deep pocket's.
Even if your lucky to get some credit you will not take a share of the money they are going to make off you.
@WatchmenDrManhattan not everyone cares about getting the credit. most people do, but some people just want to better the world, regardless of who gets the credit and money
@ArdvarkOfDeath Total bullshit. People don't actually do science to make the world a better place. Large part of government sponsored researches are about war. You don't work in Manhattan project "to make world a better place". They just do what they know and where they can achieve and get a credit and feel important. I recommend reading Ted Kaczynski's essay "Industrial Society and Its Future".
@qigong1001@troogdooor My talk primarily addresses publicly-funded science - a 100 billion dollar a year enterprise - not applied research being done within companies, which I expect will remain largely secretive and closed. @qigong10011 - the talk does not advocate "sharing and caring stuff". As emphasized several times in the talk, the key is to create incentives for more open sharing of information, not to expect people to do it solely for altruistic reason.
The intentions are good, but if scientists aren't properly compensated for their efforts, then there will be no scientists at all and all progress would stop. And lets not forget that pharmaceutical corporations fund a'lot of bio research. You think they are going to give up their discovery of this or that biomarker or receptor? Your dreaming.
@qigong1001 I'm sorry for being a bit flippant with my comment. My point was that most of the work scientists do is uncompensated, exponentially more so with good scientists. The funding is important, and the funding makes things go much faster, but a lot of work gets done simply out of love/curiosity/playfulness/etc, with no real payment.
(the collaborative math which Nielsen describes is a fine example)
@qigong1001 Also, if you ever get a chance to work in pharma, you will note that the money isn't really necessary for discovering the drug - it's necessary for "developing" it. Which means, for getting through the bureaucracy, testing, and lobbying. Without pharma-giant funding, the system would change.
@trooogdooor I've been through it. Its not a pretty business. Researchers are treated like shit and often don't get the credit even after doing all the work. What I suggest is increasing incentives to researchers. This sharing and caring stuff is a nice ideal, and I wish it would work, but I just don't see it. At the same time, researchers should be given more control to counteract big pharma's influence. But thats just a pipe dream for now as well.
Encouraging junior scientists to embrace the open science paradigm is important and is a good start. Another fundamental change needs to be implemented is in the institutional performance evaluation system to reward and recognize these activities as scholarly work that is as important as publications and services.
We tried to create Open Planner, with the intention of crowd-sourcing curriculum and lesson planning for teachers (way back in 2006), but it failed for similar reasons I think.
I did not hear her talk about getting any credit, what she talked about was how to have an idea take off and make a difference. The reality is that great ideas do not take off and change the world by merely having one, they have to be sold to people. She simultaneously studied and came up with a way that works-through story. I have never heard someone speak so much from the heart, there was nothing even remotely about getting any credit. She changed her horrible life and that was how she did it.
paulinapaulette 2 weeks ago in playlist Best of TEDxTalks
This has been flagged as spam show
solution: an established organization, like the academy of science, should start and maintain the wiki / database. That way we know it won't disappear. Then scientists and only scientists can contribute to it under their real names, however they wish. This way they can get credit for their work, and get credit where other scientists will see it. This also allows a measure of peer review, so we know the wiki will be of high quality. Thus it should be very useful as well.
jtai36 2 weeks ago in playlist Best of TEDxTalks
Comment removed
jtai36 2 weeks ago in playlist Best of TEDxTalks
Comment removed
jtai36 2 weeks ago in playlist Best of TEDxTalks
i don't think it's so much about credit, people on wikipedia don't get credit either :) although, sure, some of it may be that. I think the main issue though is really about whether or not such a database will be of any use. Which this talk illustrates that typically, no, those wikis don't do anything. Now sure, this is a self-fulling negative prophecy. People don't expect it to do well, so don't contribute, and the project fails. But that's the real issue I think.
jtai36 2 weeks ago in playlist Best of TEDxTalks
too bad most people are greedy .
zzspot 3 weeks ago
Does anyone know where I can get the transcript to this?
ZuttoAragi 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hear what God of Israel YAHUSHUA-YAHUWAH (Son and Father are ONE) saying to our generation by His chosen prophets: Trumpetcallofgodonline. com ; Letter called "Purify Your Faith, and Come to the Father as It is Written": EXCERPT: "Only in the Bible and through these very Letters, of which I have given to My prophet of the end of this age, shall you find Him and know Him."
Watch:
" youtube.com/watch?v=YZPmTH6sloo"
"youtube.com/watch?v=lutJYDxP6ys"
"youtube.com/watch?v=R9ike7PKd8U"
Regards.
TrumpetCallofGodLT 2 months ago
Prefering a personall carreer over the well being of the whole society is a typical cancerous mentality that capitalism has bread to us. We need a change.
metalorixos 2 months ago
Hipster Computer Science did open science before it was cool. Seriously, I'm glad Computer Science--free and open source software--has blazed a trail for the rest of science to follow. Let's roll.
anderwan 3 months ago 3
I agree with sharing knowledge for the benefit of all and in the process reaching deeper insights than any scientist could alone.
That said I'm not hopeful that the culture will change. In order to change it a must larger change must first occur in the economic activity around it. That is to say because it is not financially profitable to share ideas, it's unlikely that such a change will take place in a timely manner if at all.
Sentios 3 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
If only the wiki contributors were getting PAID for their time... maybe they wouldn't be so busy writing research papers in order to get a job that paid them for their work.
We should give out more government money for open source science so people with talent aren't stuck giving it away for free or whoring themselves out to pharmaceutical companies.
samisyosam 3 months ago
Comment removed
samisyosam 3 months ago
Whooo, open science.
AlkPacino 3 months ago 24
This is one very good reason why some scientists might be reluctant to go with this approach called the low hanging fruit phenamone. A scientist might fear that he might have a good idea, but never got around to developing it fully because he was doing something else (or even worse, some beaucratic administration task related to this first task).
This is frustrating enough when it happens by its own accord, but worse when I was the one who helped it materialize.
hegerwalter 5 months ago
This is silly I mean it"s good to share information but every one knows whats will happen once a good idea is shared some one else takes the credit & it is usually some big company white deep pocket's.
Even if your lucky to get some credit you will not take a share of the money they are going to make off you.
WatchmenDrManhattan 5 months ago
@WatchmenDrManhattan not everyone cares about getting the credit. most people do, but some people just want to better the world, regardless of who gets the credit and money
ArdvarkOfDeath 5 months ago 13
@ArdvarkOfDeath You cannot do science, without the funding. And you dont get funding, without credit, etc.
Ko252 1 month ago in playlist Best of TEDxTalks
@ArdvarkOfDeath Total bullshit. People don't actually do science to make the world a better place. Large part of government sponsored researches are about war. You don't work in Manhattan project "to make world a better place". They just do what they know and where they can achieve and get a credit and feel important. I recommend reading Ted Kaczynski's essay "Industrial Society and Its Future".
IBMua 3 weeks ago in playlist Best of TEDxTalks
@ArdvarkOfDeath Some men... just want to watch the world bloom.
RookOfOnyx 1 week ago in playlist Best of TEDxTalks
@qigong1001 @troogdooor My talk primarily addresses publicly-funded science - a 100 billion dollar a year enterprise - not applied research being done within companies, which I expect will remain largely secretive and closed. @qigong10011 - the talk does not advocate "sharing and caring stuff". As emphasized several times in the talk, the key is to create incentives for more open sharing of information, not to expect people to do it solely for altruistic reason.
mnielsencourses 5 months ago 2
The intentions are good, but if scientists aren't properly compensated for their efforts, then there will be no scientists at all and all progress would stop. And lets not forget that pharmaceutical corporations fund a'lot of bio research. You think they are going to give up their discovery of this or that biomarker or receptor? Your dreaming.
qigong1001 6 months ago
@qigong1001 You sound like a non-scientist.
trooogdooor 5 months ago
@trooogdooor What does a scientist sound like?
qigong1001 5 months ago
@qigong1001 I'm sorry for being a bit flippant with my comment. My point was that most of the work scientists do is uncompensated, exponentially more so with good scientists. The funding is important, and the funding makes things go much faster, but a lot of work gets done simply out of love/curiosity/playfulness/etc, with no real payment.
(the collaborative math which Nielsen describes is a fine example)
trooogdooor 5 months ago
@qigong1001 Also, if you ever get a chance to work in pharma, you will note that the money isn't really necessary for discovering the drug - it's necessary for "developing" it. Which means, for getting through the bureaucracy, testing, and lobbying. Without pharma-giant funding, the system would change.
trooogdooor 5 months ago
@trooogdooor I've been through it. Its not a pretty business. Researchers are treated like shit and often don't get the credit even after doing all the work. What I suggest is increasing incentives to researchers. This sharing and caring stuff is a nice ideal, and I wish it would work, but I just don't see it. At the same time, researchers should be given more control to counteract big pharma's influence. But thats just a pipe dream for now as well.
qigong1001 5 months ago
Encouraging junior scientists to embrace the open science paradigm is important and is a good start. Another fundamental change needs to be implemented is in the institutional performance evaluation system to reward and recognize these activities as scholarly work that is as important as publications and services.
11wong2x 7 months ago
We tried to create Open Planner, with the intention of crowd-sourcing curriculum and lesson planning for teachers (way back in 2006), but it failed for similar reasons I think.
dwees2 10 months ago
Nature is launching openacces journal, so we're slowly changing the paradigms
cendp1am 10 months ago
There will be fantastic if we can export the Open Science to the Open Heatlh with a real Crowsourcing of health diagnosis and problems.
cataiyt 11 months ago