[open-science] Building an Open Science Q&A site
Ted Strauss
ted at trudat.co
Tue Feb 25 21:30:41 UTC 2014
Since there may be a bit of interest, I'd like to offer a case study
for how Discourse<https://app.getsignals.com/link?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdiscourse.org%2F&ukey=agxzfnNpZ25hbHNjcnhyGAsSC1VzZXJQcm9maWxlGICAgIDmnK4KDA&k=453573b4-f2b9-40b7-9a7d-4e325b3597c9>is
an ideal communication technology
for a subject like open science.
There is a meta-Discourse forum for users of the forum software itself.
I posted a topic<https://app.getsignals.com/link?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmeta.discourse.org%2Ft%2Fmultiple-languages-on-single-discourse-site%2F8269%2F4&ukey=agxzfnNpZ25hbHNjcnhyGAsSC1VzZXJQcm9maWxlGICAgIDmnK4KDA&k=43e692f5-0b9e-4064-b757-93e5e13ae736>
8
months ago asking about multi-language features.
There was an initial burst of interest, and then the topic was dormant.
Every time a new comment was added, all previous contributors
got an email notification about it (these notifications can be turned off),
which led to another burst of comments.
Then, after about 7 months, a group of programmers stepped up and
volunteered to implement the suggested features for the software, and are
now contributing to the github repository. It took 7 months before real
action took place, but the way Discourse archives topics keeps the
conversation relevant, and keeps the previous contributors up to date with
new developments. There is also a weekly (or daily) digest email about the
most active topics.
I think this is an excellent model for open science topics, and a big
improvement over listservs, q&a sites, and wikis, all of which have
important niches to fill. Listservs are best for timely announcements;
wikis are best when ideas are settled and no longer being debated;
q&a is good when clear unambiguous answers are the priority.
Discourse is great for extended conversations that can bifurcate
in unpredictable directions.
Emanuil, if you are willing to set up a installation of Discourse, perhaps
we could try out a test with a few participants?
Cheers
Ted
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Emanuil Tolev <emanuil at cottagelabs.com>wrote:
> Yeah, Discourse is pretty interesting, including for smaller groups or
> whipping up conversation which isn't happening yet, I'm looking into it for
> a project of mine around Postgrad funding.
>
> If people feel that a Discourse forum would be a good idea instead of a SE
> site I can probably host and maintain it on our servers at a production
> level (so as close to 24/7 as possible, keep the performance nice, minimise
> hiccups, get domain).
>
> As for applicability of a SE site, I think that a lot of people have a lot
> of questions about Open Science (incl. what it is, exactly). These are
> repeated by pretty much everybody new to the idea. SE is a Q&A site, so
> people naturally try to match the two (but as pointed out in the prolific
> discussion in this thread, SE may not be the best fit).
>
> Of course wikis have existed for ages and fulfilled the same need - except
> they're not good for discussions. They're also kinda hard to market for
> some reason as of yet unknown to me (it's just difficult to get people to
> engage with them, esp. contribute). Talking about custom ones of course,
> not Wikipedia.
>
> I'm not quite convinced that Discourse will serve our needs better, but at
> the end of the day I would actually like to have a place where researchers
> can ask questions about Open Science, so I'll just start on it if nothing
> better (by consensus) comes up in the conversation.
>
> Greetings,
> Emanuil
>
>
> On 24 February 2014 17:47, Ted Strauss <ted at trudat.co> wrote:
>
>> As a longtime SE user, I'm very glad to see this discussion here.
>> I think openscience.SE is a worthy idea, but I completely agree with the
>> concerns being raised by Piotr. It takes a large committed community to
>> build an active SE site.
>>
>> I have another concern I'd like to raise, and a suggestion.
>> SE's policy for accepting only questions with defined answers is helpful,
>> but is it applicable for the topic of Open Science? I think that many
>> questions about open science deserve vigorous discussion, and don't have
>> clear answers.
>>
>> One of StackExchange's founders Jeff Atwood started a new discussion
>> forum software called Discourse<https://app.getsignals.com/link?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.discourse.org%2F&ukey=agxzfnNpZ25hbHNjcnhyGAsSC1VzZXJQcm9maWxlGICAgIDmnK4KDA&k=dc2408c5-674d-4930-a176-630e1f89dc9b>that is a major improvement over other forum softwares. Here is an
>> example<https://app.getsignals.com/link?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdiscuss.howtogeek.com%2F&ukey=agxzfnNpZ25hbHNjcnhyGAsSC1VzZXJQcm9maWxlGICAgIDmnK4KDA&k=cd2f1e8f-01cd-43a8-a7fb-66edfe03a51f>of a Discourse forum. I think Discourse is a big improvement over listservs
>> and even a SE site (which is better suited to topics that have a large
>> community already). Discourse is open source, and must be self-hosted (not
>> so difficult). I hope you'll check it out.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Ted Strauss
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Piotr Migdal <pmigdal at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Łukasz,
>>>
>>> I don't object that open science is a hot topic.
>>> (Though, OpenData is far from having a sustainable activity of users, at
>>> least as of now.)
>>>
>>> And for SE site the practice shows, that creating new site works only in
>>> two cases:
>>> - there is totally no SE site where you can ask the questions,
>>> - there is already very strong community on an existing SE site, willing
>>> to split.
>>>
>>> Just the practice shows, that if there is a single site where you can
>>> ask question - just do so!
>>> (Also beware: setting a new site takes months - a year, given everything
>>> goes well.)
>>>
>>> Furthermore, more overlap is coming soon:
>>> - http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/58715/open-source-licensing
>>>
>>> So just try asking two or three questions on
>>> http://academia.stackexchange.com/
>>> and see how it goes!
>>> I would be happy to see you in the Academia.SE community!
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Piotr
>>>
>>> On 24 Feb 2014, at 17:38, Lukasz Bolikowski <l.bolikowski at icm.edu.pl>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Dear Piotr, Matthew,
>>> >
>>> > thanks for your comments. Let me briefly address here the points you
>>> have raised, a bit longer version can be found there:
>>> >
>>> > http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/a/13484/16092
>>> >
>>> > First of all, thank you, Piotr, for a pointer to the "Why did
>>> Theoretical Physics fail?" discussion. It is very insightful! Let me
>>> point one difference between Theoretical Physics and the proposed Open
>>> Science that gives the latter some hope: OS is a "hot topic", with
>>> increasing demand for information from the general public, especially in
>>> the light of changing policies of funding agencies, governments, libraries
>>> and publishers. TP, on the other hand, registers rather stable interest.
>>> >
>>> > Mat, regarding #1, I greatly appreciate all the fantastic initiatives
>>> like the Google+ community and the hard work that is associated with it. I
>>> do believe, however, that there is still room for a Q&A site (be it
>>> OpenScience.SE or Academia.SE), as this particular format of presenting
>>> information is 1) very friendly to search engines and 2) encourages
>>> participation/involvement of casual visitors.
>>> >
>>> > Regarding Mat's #2, let me start with a disclaimer: it is up to the
>>> community, not to me, to define the scope of the new site. My personal
>>> opinion follows. I believe that, ultimately, OpenScience.SE will get a lot
>>> (majority) of traffic from search engines like Google, and that a Q&A site
>>> is even more suited to store the general knowledge (e.g. "What's the
>>> difference between Green OA and Gold OA?") than a *regular* wiki (after
>>> all, SE has the "community wiki" feature, which should be used for a
>>> collaborative answer to the above question).
>>> >
>>> > I, too, would like to avoid open-ended questions like "What do people
>>> think about [broad philosophical issue]". I, too, prefer the "How do I do
>>> [technical thing in my open project]" type. I hope this kind of scope will
>>> prevail.
>>> >
>>> > Best regards,
>>> >
>>> > Lukasz
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 02/23/2014 12:35 PM, Piotr Migdal wrote:
>>> >> Hi Łukasz,
>>> >> Hi Mat,
>>> >>
>>> >> It is very tricky to start a StackExchange site, when there already
>>> SE
>>> >> sites with some overlap (speaking as some-one who tried it an failed -
>>> >>
>>> http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/130361/why-did-theoretical-physics-fail
>>> ).
>>> >>
>>> >> But the good thing is that they are already SE sites related to open
>>> >> science:
>>> >> http://academia.stackexchange.com/ (actually, there are already many
>>> >> open science questions there)
>>> >> and
>>> >> http://opendata.stackexchange.com/
>>> >>
>>> >> I would suggest asking questions open science questions on the above
>>> sites.
>>> >>
>>> >> As I see from the OpenScience.SE proposal, all suggested questions
>>> >> either fit in at least one of the above, or in general are not good
>>> >> SE-questions (too subjective or open-ended).
>>> >>
>>> >> Also note, that OpenData.SE is somewhere on the verge of (not) having
>>> >> critical mass of users, so splitting the topic even further is
>>> unlikely
>>> >> to be successful.
>>> >>
>>> >> Regards,
>>> >> Piotr
>>> >> http://migdal.wikidot.com/
>>> >>
>>> >> On 23 Feb 2014, at 05:51, Matthew Todd <matthew.todd at sydney.edu.au
>>> >> <mailto:matthew.todd at sydney.edu.au>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> Hi Lukasz,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I'm not against this idea, and have long thought StackExchange could
>>> >>> be a powerful way to work together (not least because of the
>>> >>> remarkable metrics it employs to track contributions) but I think a
>>> >>> couple of things ought to be established first:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 1) How would this be superior from what is quite a useful Google+
>>> >>> community on open science, where obviously inputs are quite
>>> >>> discoverable. On the one hand there are no metrics applied to
>>> >>> participants, but on the other hand it's quite active and would be
>>> >>> suitable for many of the sorts of discussions suggested on the trial
>>> >>> page you have up.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 2) "Open Science" has become a very broad term. To many it refers to
>>> >>> issues around open access, or open data. To me it means (mostly) a
>>> >>> different kind of collaborative process that arises from open access
>>> >>> and open data. Diversity of opinions is good, but you should probably
>>> >>> be prepared for the Q&A site to become dominated by one of those
>>> >>> flavours of "open science" unless you are specific about coverage
>>> >>> right from the start.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> To my mind one of the strengths of StackExchange (for e.g. code) is
>>> >>> that people are asking how to do things, and other people share
>>> >>> solutions for how to do those things. So some of the sample questions
>>> >>> you have up there are of this type (How do I get a DOI for a dataset)
>>> >>> whereas others are the kinds of questions that just need a bit of
>>> >>> Googling around or where the solutions may be better served by a wiki
>>> >>> article (e.g. what's the difference between Green and Gold OA).
>>> >>> Perhaps it would be useful if there were a tight relationship between
>>> >>> a Q&A site, for the frontier how-to questions, and the Wikipedia page
>>> >>> on open science where established information would be better placed,
>>> >>> or where a discussion with a clear answer could trigger someone to
>>> >>> install the answer on the Wikipedia page.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> So I'm not saying don't do this, but I for one would love for the
>>> >>> focus to be more "How do I do [technical thing in my open project]"
>>> >>> rather than "What do people think about [broad philosophical issue]".
>>> >>> The former would create something different and valuable.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Cheers,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Mat
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On 22 February 2014 23:00, open-science-request at lists.okfn.org
>>> >>> <mailto:open-science-request at lists.okfn.org>
>>> >>> <open-science-request at lists.okfn.org
>>> >>> <mailto:open-science-request at lists.okfn.org>> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Send open-science mailing list submissions to
>>> >>> open-science at lists.okfn.org <mailto:open-science at lists.okfn.org>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>> >>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>>> >>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>> >>> open-science-request at lists.okfn.org
>>> >>> <mailto:open-science-request at lists.okfn.org>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>> >>> open-science-owner at lists.okfn.org
>>> >>> <mailto:open-science-owner at lists.okfn.org>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more
>>> specific
>>> >>> than "Re: Contents of open-science digest..."
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Today's Topics:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 1. Building an Open Science Q&A site (Lukasz Bolikowski)
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Message: 1
>>> >>> Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 15:24:33 +0100
>>> >>> From: Lukasz Bolikowski <l.bolikowski at icm.edu.pl
>>> >>> <mailto:l.bolikowski at icm.edu.pl>>
>>> >>> To: "open-science at lists.okfn.org
>>> >>> <mailto:open-science at lists.okfn.org>" <
>>> open-science at lists.okfn.org
>>> >>> <mailto:open-science at lists.okfn.org>>
>>> >>> Subject: [open-science] Building an Open Science Q&A site
>>> >>> Message-ID: <530761A1.9000901 at icm.edu.pl
>>> >>> <mailto:530761A1.9000901 at icm.edu.pl>>
>>> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Dear list,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> *Background*. Some of you may know StackExchange.com
>>> >>> <http://StackExchange.com>, a popular network
>>> >>> of community-driven Q&A sites (5 million users, 8 million
>>> >>> questions, 15
>>> >>> million answers). The individual sites focus on different topics,
>>> >>> such
>>> >>> as: programming, mathematics, English language, computer games,
>>> >>> photography, science fiction, religions, etc. Each Q&A site has a
>>> >>> well-designed, inviting interface through which users may ask
>>> >>> questions,
>>> >>> provide answers, upvote and downvote both Qs and As. Lots of
>>> badges
>>> >>> stimulate users for better contributions and more intensive
>>> activity.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> For example, StackOverflow.com <http://StackOverflow.com> (Q&A
>>> >>> site for programmers) has become
>>> >>> both a large compendium of knowledge about programming
>>> (structured in
>>> >>> the form of Q&As), and a popular social site for answering
>>> questions.
>>> >>> Many (most?) of my programming-related Google searches lead me to
>>> >>> answers on StackOverflow.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Last but not least, the network has worked out a mature set of
>>> >>> policies
>>> >>> and mechanisms for community-driven development of new sites.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> *Call for action*. I have just created a proposal for a new Q&A
>>> >>> site in
>>> >>> the StackExchange network, devoted to Open Science:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/65426/open-science
>>> >>>
>>> >>> and I would like to encourage you to participate in its
>>> development.
>>> >>> Please follow the link above, and sign up or log in using your
>>> >>> Google/Facebook credentials. Next, "follow" the proposal, vote
>>> on the
>>> >>> questions (upvote the questions you consider on-topic, downvote
>>> the
>>> >>> off-topic ones, discuss) and propose your own questions.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> *Technicalities*. In the first phase (called "Definition") we
>>> need to
>>> >>> gather 60 people interested in creating the site. We also need to
>>> >>> write
>>> >>> and select a total of 40 on-topic and off-topic questions
>>> (examples of
>>> >>> both types are needed). This way we will define what the site
>>> >>> will and
>>> >>> will not be about, and we will move to the next phases
>>> >>> (Commitment, then
>>> >>> Private Beta, then Public Beta). Ultimately, we will all be
>>> >>> collaboratively building a knowledge base on Open Science and
>>> >>> providing
>>> >>> support for the general public.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> *Why*? To create a one stop shop for all the people having
>>> questions
>>> >>> about Open Science. I have seen a great deal of energy and
>>> enthusiasm
>>> >>> in the Open Science community, and a lot of interest in the Open
>>> >>> Science
>>> >>> issues among researchers and other stakeholders. This is an
>>> >>> attempt to
>>> >>> channel the energy of the community and to leverage a popular
>>> platform
>>> >>> in order to advance the cause.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I'm confident that we will create a useful and vibrant site!
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Best regards,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Lukasz
>>> >>>
>>> >>> PS. All user contributions on StackExchange are licensed under
>>> >>> CC-BY-SA 3.0.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> --
>>> >>> Dr. ?ukasz Bolikowski, Assistant Professor
>>> >>> Centre for Open Science, ICM, University of Warsaw
>>> >>> Contact details: http://www.icm.edu.pl/~bolo/
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> ------------------------------
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Subject: Digest Footer
>>> >>>
>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>> open-science mailing list
>>> >>> open-science at lists.okfn.org <mailto:open-science at lists.okfn.org>
>>> >>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>>> >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/optionss/open-science
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> ------------------------------
>>> >>>
>>> >>> End of open-science Digest, Vol 440, Issue 1
>>> >>> ********************************************
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> --
>>> >>> MATTHEW TODD | Associate Professor
>>> >>> School of Chemistry | Faculty of Science
>>> >>>
>>> >>> THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY
>>> >>> Rm 519, F11 | The University of Sydney | NSW | 2006
>>> >>> T +61 2 9351 2180 | F +61 2 9351 3329 | M +61 415 274104
>>> >>> E matthew.todd at sydney.edu.au <mailto:matthew.todd at sydney.edu.au> |
>>> W
>>> >>> http://sydney.edu.au/science/chemistry/research/todd.html
>>> >>>
>>> >>> CRICOS 00026A
>>> >>> This email plus any attachments to it are confidential. Any
>>> >>> unauthorised use is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in
>>> >>> error, please delete it and any attachments.
>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>> open-science mailing list
>>> >>> open-science at lists.okfn.org <mailto:open-science at lists.okfn.org>
>>> >>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>>> >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Dr. Łukasz Bolikowski, Assistant Professor
>>> > Centre for Open Science, ICM, University of Warsaw
>>> > Contact details: http://www.icm.edu.pl/~bolo/
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> open-science mailing list
>>> open-science at lists.okfn.org
>>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ted Strauss
>> Co-founder of Trudat.co <http://trudat.co/>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> open-science mailing list
>> open-science at lists.okfn.org
>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
>>
>>
>
--
Ted Strauss
Co-founder of Trudat.co <http://trudat.co/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20140225/b0363d7d/attachment-0003.html>
More information about the open-science
mailing list