Walking the walk - the practical experience of Web2 in research

• 1. Walking the Walk The experience of using Web 2.0 tools in active research projects Cameron Neylon

2. 1. The long tail 2. Data is the next Intel inside 3. Users add value 4. Network effects by default 5. Some rights reserved 6. Perpetual Beta 7. Cooperate dont control 8. Software above the level of a single device http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html?page=5 3. What does Web 2.0 offer aresearcher in practice? http://ickr.com/photos/heymans/480396810/ 4. http://tinyurl.com/friendfeed-mthk-request 5. Open tender and response Not mass participation or opinion markets There just arent that many researchers A good community and a well built and cared for network are critical 6. The Polymath Project 7. 27 January 2009 http://gowers.wordpress.com/ 8. 27 January 2009 February 1 2009 http://gowers.wordpress.com/ 9. 27 January 2009 February 1 2009March 10 2009 http://gowers.wordpress.com/ 10. Successful project Small core group of participants Much larger group of watchers Concerns over embarrassment, keeping up, mechanisms for giving credit Issues over management of large numbers of very active threads 11. Open Notebook Challenge 12. http://onschallenge.wikispaces.com/Exp026 13. http://tinyurl.com/ons-challenge-spreadsheet 14. http://oru.edu/cccda/sl/descriptorspace/ds.php 15. http://slurl.com/secondlife/Drexel/165/178/24 16. 113 individual measurements(plus 71 literature values)14 researchers in four countries One undergraduate chemistry class $6000 funding (for prizes and chemicals) 17. 113 individual measurements(plus 71 literature values)14 researchers in four countries One undergraduate chemistry class $6000 funding (for prizes and chemicals) Four monthsOne (invited) book chapter submittedSecond paper in preparation 18. Collaboration enabled via open data licensing Still relatively small numbers of people Are massive collaborative projects even possible? 90% arent aware of it, 9% are passive watchers 0.9% make occasional contributions and 0.1% are core players - does that add up to more than one? 19. Galaxy Zoo 20. Compelling and comprehensible story Much work gone into building a system that enables people to make a contribution Responsive and appealing user experience Still a self selecting community but drawn from a much wider pool 21. Deploying the LaBLog at RAL 22. Screenshot - 26 March 23. Its going to be great but we need to put a lot of work into getting it going... I dont have the time to put all the stuff in... Get what the advantages are but havent necessarily bought in to the process Concerns over data re-use and scooping 24. Where does this leave us? 25. 1. The long tail 2. Data is the next Intel inside 3. Users add value 4. Network effects by default 5. Some rights reserved 6. Perpetual Beta 7. Cooperate dont control 8. Software above the level of a single device http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html?page=5 26. 1. The long tail 27. 1. The long tail ugh eno fatsnti unless you w ork real hard at itc.f. galaxy zoo, FoldIt etc. 28. 2. Data is the new Intel inside well duh! 29. nt to a w ou 3. Users add value Ybut why do they want t o? 30. 4. Network effects by default 31. 4. Network effects by defaultSP rUou sy atthif ow utpn beu giv enth 32. 5. Some rights reservedlicensing matters, even if everyone thinks its bori ng 33. is not an excuse for giving people rubbish6. Perpetual beta 34. is not an excuse for giving people rubbish6. Perpetual beta 35. is not an excuse forgiving people rubbish 6. Perpetual beta provement continual im 36. ating tegr in ine lies valul the Al g itardin n ho not i data, 7. Cooperate dont control 37. ating tegr in ine lies valul the Al g itardin n ho not i data, 7. Cooperate dont controllicensing matters, even if everyone thinks its bori ng 38. ating tegr in ine lies valul the Al g itardin n ho not i data, 7. Cooperate dont control licensing matters, even i feveryone thinks its boring ecause it ike is bad b share-alperabilityeaks intero br 39. 8. Software above the level of asingle device 40. collaboration 8. Software above the level of asingle device 41. collaboration 8. Software above the level of asingle device vice ser 42. What are the design patterns for successful research tools? 43. 1. Dene and understand your target audience2. Solve a pressing problem they have or tell them a storythey understand and want to contribute to3. Build the service into an existing workow or a establishedframework that the target audience understands4. Get the licensing right and give users a sense of controlover their own data and contribution5. Build for network effects but dont rely on them6. Plan to build (and resource the building of) your community7. Build for interoperability; technical and legal 44. Friendfeed as a research community 45. http://friendfeed.com 46. http://tinyurl.com/dku869 47. Pulling items from external services via RSS 48. Aggregating content (solving a problem) Works without a network; network effects follow Collecting comments and ratings (data) Straightforward pumping of data in and pulling it backout via API (licensing, interoperability) Community, community, community Building your own network 49. If you just build it they (probably) wont come 50. If you dont build it they denitely wont come 51. The community is more important than the service 52. Researchers are already the tail