4 ms·

I know the "wisdom of crowds" is passe, but the continued success (all things considered) of Wikipedia and open source software really makes me question the val

I know the "wisdom of crowds" is passe, but the continued success (all things considered) of Wikipedia and open source software really makes me question the value of quality gatekeepers. I know I'm biased because I work in software and the costs of mediocrity in this industry are less than in others, but I think we could speed up innovation and discovery if we opened up science and made it more publicly accessible and collaborative. At some point the gatekeepers are just protecting their turf and hold back progress.

agumonkey 11y ago
Truth lies in between. We're not for faster AND lower quality, mostly for less absurd resistance in the flow of knowledge. Granted that in some domains, a paper stuck in a waiting queue means death for people. Let's hope this kicks discussion and adaptation.
- jackcosgrove 11y ago
  I'm for faster and greater quantity, knowing that will reduce median quality and, I believe, increase average quality.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
d0mine 11y ago
The crucial difference is that an amateur can provide a meaningful contribution to an open-source software project while the same is unlikely in (modern) science. You need years of intense studying even to understand the current state of the art in a chosen scientific field. Experiments require more money too.
- nl 11y ago
  As someone who has fallen into a transition from software engineering to science I think I can say this is mostly wrong. It seems to me that any given field of "science" isn't any harder than dropping into a new area of software engineering. There's a lot to learn, sure, but there's a lot to do as well and there are areas where an complete rank amateur can make significant contributions. It's still true that every day I discover something I have no idea at all about. But it seems that this is fairly normal in science - people know a lot about a single specialized area and not much outside it.
  - d0mine 11y ago
    > I think I can say this is mostly wrong. There are 3 sentences in my comment. What specific claim do you consider to be wrong and what is your evidence?
    - nl 11y ago
      All 3 The crucial difference is that an amateur can provide a meaningful contribution to an open-source software project while the same is unlikely in (modern) science. http://motherboard.vice.com/read/meet-the-amateur-comet-hunter-who-out-gazes-the-big-telescopes http://motherboard.vice.com/read/meet-the-amateur-comet-hunt... http://io9.gizmodo.com/5841287/the-story-of-the-woman-who-discovered-new-species-in-her-garden http://io9.gizmodo.com/5841287/the-story-of-the-woman-who-di... You need years of intense studying even to understand the current state of the art in a chosen scientific field. From personal experience, this isn't the case. But you'll complain about citations, so: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160313-mathematicians-discover-prime-conspiracy/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160313-mathematicians-disco... Experiments require more money too. See the examples provided above.
- cooper12 11y ago
  I disagree. There's no reason that properly educated and briefed volunteers can't do a lot of the same work. Just look at citizen scientists. [0] There have been studies that have shown them to be just as effective as experts. [1] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_science [1]: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0069958 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....

agumonkey 11y ago

Truth lies in between. We're not for faster AND lower quality, mostly for less absurd resistance in the flow of knowledge. Granted that in some domains, a paper stuck in a waiting queue means death for people. Let's hope this kicks discussion and adaptation.

jackcosgrove 11y ago
I'm for faster and greater quantity, knowing that will reduce median quality and, I believe, increase average quality.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

d0mine 11y ago

The crucial difference is that an amateur can provide a meaningful contribution to an open-source software project while the same is unlikely in (modern) science. You need years of intense studying even to understand the current state of the art in a chosen scientific field. Experiments require more money too.

nl 11y ago
As someone who has fallen into a transition from software engineering to science I think I can say this is mostly wrong. It seems to me that any given field of "science" isn't any harder than dropping into a new area of software engineering. There's a lot to learn, sure, but there's a lot to do as well and there are areas where an complete rank amateur can make significant contributions. It's still true that every day I discover something I have no idea at all about. But it seems that this is fairly normal in science - people know a lot about a single specialized area and not much outside it.
- d0mine 11y ago
  > I think I can say this is mostly wrong. There are 3 sentences in my comment. What specific claim do you consider to be wrong and what is your evidence?
  - nl 11y ago
    All 3 The crucial difference is that an amateur can provide a meaningful contribution to an open-source software project while the same is unlikely in (modern) science. http://motherboard.vice.com/read/meet-the-amateur-comet-hunter-who-out-gazes-the-big-telescopes http://motherboard.vice.com/read/meet-the-amateur-comet-hunt... http://io9.gizmodo.com/5841287/the-story-of-the-woman-who-discovered-new-species-in-her-garden http://io9.gizmodo.com/5841287/the-story-of-the-woman-who-di... You need years of intense studying even to understand the current state of the art in a chosen scientific field. From personal experience, this isn't the case. But you'll complain about citations, so: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160313-mathematicians-discover-prime-conspiracy/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160313-mathematicians-disco... Experiments require more money too. See the examples provided above.
cooper12 11y ago
I disagree. There's no reason that properly educated and briefed volunteers can't do a lot of the same work. Just look at citizen scientists. [0] There have been studies that have shown them to be just as effective as experts. [1] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_science [1]: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0069958 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....