Thehumilityofscientifi(;geniusisnotsimplyculturallyappropriatebutresultsfromtherealizationthatscientificadvanceinvolvesthecollabora-tionofpastandpresentgenerations.ItwasCarlyle,notMaxwell,whoindulgedinamy~popoeicconception
wouldn't the same apply for technology? If so, why are intellectual property laws currently making it more difficult for people to share work?
Thescientist'sclaimto"bis"intellectual"property"islimitedtothatofrecognition.andesteem
The incentive here doesn't seem to be monetary but rather intrinsic, which reminds me of why people contribute to Wikipedia (for the intrinsic value of helping the common good).
henthelargercultureopposesuniversalism,theetbosofscienceissubjectedtoseriousstrain
It would be interesting to hear of some examples where this was the case, and why.
hescientistcametoregardhimselfasindependentofsocietyandtoconsiderscienceasaself-validatingenter-prisewhichwasinsocietybutnotofit.
This is an interesting point, because I've always thought that science is shaped by the social and cultural context that surrounds it.
It may be personally satisfying to provide an important educational service for individuals looking for health information, and to see articles grow that one created or improved.
Incentive, in this case, may not be monetary but rather intrinsic fulfillment.
Why not adopt Wikipedia as the platform for the global medical knowledge database proposed at the dawn of the Medicine 2.0
If this happens what are the risks and benefits of anyone being able to contribute? Amateurs vs. experts?
If this route fails, editors can request assistance from experienced editors, solicit comments from a wider part of the community, and request informal and formal mediation and, ultimately, arbitration
How do you become an experienced editor? What kinds of checks and balances exist even as you move up the chain of editing.
quality can be sustained in a radically open editing system
peers monitoring one another seems to work well for Wikipedia, but does it apply to other sites with this mode of production?
is written collaboratively by volunteers from countries around the world
People clearly contribute to Wikipedia for the common good, as they are not receiving any stipend or incentive to do so. Yet how reliable is this information/to what extent should people trust it?
s everything he wrote and said, everything he left behind, to be included in his work?
Where do you draw the line for this? How can we determine what's important, as this varies for every author/
We can easily imagine a culture where discourse would circulate without any need for an author. Dis-courses, whatever their status, form, or value, and regardless of our ma~er of handling them, would unfold in a pervasive anonymity.
This is especially relevant given the digital information age we have entered, where people can prompt discussion easily online, and anonymously.
However, it is obvious that even within the realm of discourse a person can be the author of much more than a book-of a theory, for instance, of a tradition or a discipline within which new books and authors can prolifer-ate.
What is the difference between an author and an inventor?
Their anonymity was ignored because their real or supposed age was a sufficient guarantee of their authenticity.
Do we now rely too much on the name of a certain author to legitimize works? How does the author frame our understanding/interpretation of a work?
big companies can now largely ignore legitimate patent holders.
How far does this go? What are specific cases where large companies have ignored legitimate patent holders/what can patent holders do to contest this?