3
edits
Talk:Social Systems: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
* Questions about adoption | * Questions about adoption | ||
* Regulations (for example, in USA there's data open or they don't receive money anymore), in EU there's a proposal to evaluate researchers using diff metrics, such as openness | * Regulations (for example, in USA there's data open or they don't receive money anymore), in EU there's a proposal to evaluate researchers using diff metrics, such as openness | ||
Sílvia | Sílvia | ||
* old incentives, what are the ones in place besides reputation? | |||
* What should we keep in mind when creating | |||
Angelina | Angelina | ||
| Line 22: | Line 21: | ||
* democratically incentives, but existing structures are not democratically enough | * democratically incentives, but existing structures are not democratically enough | ||
Jay (joining from the Interfaces group, adding some notes here for you) | |||
* badges from open science are a social signal of participating in a new practice (analog would be Rescognito.com for knowledge synthesis) | |||
* practical advice from studying the gamification literature may be valuable | |||
* psychological and sociological literature on volunteering and altruism may also inspire ideas (I'm trying to think from different angles) | |||
<br> | |||
* Most of the incentives are monetary (there are social) | |||
* researchers are not in a position to decide; they're put in the system | |||
* funders can probably change the infrastructure and regulations | |||
'''Q: stakeholders?''' | |||
* Researchers | |||
* grant funders | |||
* publishing agencies | |||
* Other: industry, taxpayers | |||
'''Q - change coming from which stakeholders?''' | |||
* Biggest US and European | |||
* smaller foundations, not supper novel ideas, a lot of outliers in Web3 | |||
* researcher will move to web3 in 10 to 20 | |||
* Stepwise approach, led by biggest funder | |||
*alternative view*: demonstrate the reality of sth, Web3 and Desci - opportunity to demonstrate structures and mechanisms working in a small scale, and showcasing to onboard larger organizations | |||
* start small and demonstrate value | |||
'''Push for the adoption of new systems:''' | |||
* works but not optimal: some systems work great on a small scale, but scale to promote less nice behaviour | |||
* Readiness of academia? | |||
* otoh, early adopters don't need to be big | |||
Nouran: | |||
*HCI community: the driving force is actually the academics | |||
* Tool building perspective: challenges? | |||
* Reputation & interactions in online space: how can we build better tools to help users navigate these spaces without being afraid of their reputation | |||
Martin Q - if we create spaces to allow researchers to come together away from their high reputation game, how do they tap into research initiatives and new funders and funding mechanisms? | |||
Open Questions - validate assumptions for the system that should work on a bigger scale? | |||
* how do we determine the systems that will work on a big scale without testing them on a large scale? | |||
* Valerii shares his company approach: small-scale test, update the pre-existing model + ar | |||
Open Questions? | |||
''' spec out different funding/incentive models for sustaining the work of synthesis ''' | |||
'''developing incentive mechanisms for contributions to understanding the status of the knowledge frontier''' | |||
'''incentive mechanisms for contributing and maintaining living lit reviews in both domains''' | |||