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

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 don’t 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

What does Web 2.0 offer
a researcher in practice? http://flickr.com/photos/heymans/480396810/

http://tinyurl.com/friendfeed-mthk-request

• Open tender and response
• Not mass participation or opinion markets • There just aren’t that many researchers • A good community and a well built and cared for network are critical

The Polymath Project

27 January 2009
http://gowers.wordpress.com/

27 January 2009 February 1
2009 http://gowers.wordpress.com/

27 January 2009 February 1
2009 March 10 2009 http://gowers.wordpress.com/

• 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

Open Notebook Challenge

http://onschallenge.wikispaces.com/Exp026

http://tinyurl.com/ons-challenge-spreadsheet

http://oru.edu/cccda/sl/descriptorspace/ds.php

http://slurl.com/secondlife/Drexel/165/178/24

113 individual measurements (plus 71
literature values) 14 researchers in four countries One undergraduate chemistry class $6000 funding (for prizes and chemicals)

113 individual measurements (plus 71
literature values) 14 researchers in four countries One undergraduate chemistry class $6000 funding (for prizes and chemicals) Four months One (invited) book chapter submitted Second paper in preparation

• Collaboration enabled via open
data licensing • Still relatively small numbers of people • Are massive collaborative projects even possible? • 90% aren’t 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?

Galaxy Zoo

• 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

Deploying the LaBLog at RAL

Screenshot - 26 March

• “It’s going to be
great but we need to put a lot of work into getting it going...” • “I don’t have the time to put all the stuff in...” • Get what the advantages are but haven’t necessarily bought in to the process • Concerns over data re-use and “scooping”

Where does this leave us?

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 don’t 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

1. The long tail

1. The long tail ugh
eno fat sn’t i unless you w ork real hard at it c.f. galaxy zo o, FoldIt etc .

2. Data is the new
Intel inside well duh!

nt to a w ou
3. Users add value Y but why do they want t o?

4. Network effects by default

4. Network effects by default
SP rU ou sy at’ th if ow ut pn b eu giv en th

5. Some rights reserved licensing
matters, even i f everyone thinks it’s bori ng

is not an excuse for
giving people rubbish 6. Perpetual beta

is not an excuse for
giving people rubbish 6. Perpetual beta

is not an excuse for
giving people rubbish 6. Perpetual beta provement continual im

ating tegr in in e
lies valu l the Al g it ardin n ho not i data, 7. Cooperate don’t control

ating tegr in in e
lies valu l the Al g it ardin n ho not i data, 7. Cooperate don’t control licensing matters, even i f everyone thinks it’s bori ng

ating tegr in in e
lies valu l the Al g it ardin n ho not i data, 7. Cooperate don’t control licensing matters, even i f everyone thinks it’s bori ng ecause it ike is bad b share-al perability eaks intero br

8. Software above the level
of a single device

collaboration 8. Software above the
level of a single device

collaboration 8. Software above the
level of a single device vice ser

What are the design patterns
for successful research tools?

1. Define and understand your
target audience 2. Solve a pressing problem they have or tell them a story they understand and want to contribute to 3. Build the service into an existing workflow or a established framework that the target audience understands 4. Get the licensing right and give users a sense of control over their own data and contribution 5. Build for network effects but don’t rely on them 6. Plan to build (and resource the building of) your community 7. Build for interoperability; technical and legal

Friendfeed as a research community

http://friendfeed.com

http://tinyurl.com/dku869

Pulling items from external services
via RSS

• 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

If you just build it
they (probably) won’t come

If you don’t build it
they definitely won’t come

The community is more important
than the service

Researchers are already the tail