RE: The Double Helix, Photo 51 and the Challenge of Priority: Who Gets Credit in Science?
For this to happen, you need to develop a personality who is confident of their insights and who doesn't care that their own name is recognized as long as the idea or insight has been unleashed. Some have gone down in the annals without any naming or accentuation of his achievement, forgotten his grave, died his name. And yet he has left a rich legacy. Difficult in an environment as competitive as ours. But not impossible. Through the many open source projects there is a breath of air that makes you happy. If you don't want to earn money and become famous, if the driving force is inspiration, but the mother of all children, you may succeed in what we want to achieve as a community. The material reward is then often only a side effect that one welcomes. True genius, in my opinion, always prevails. Either in life or afterwards. No matter whether for only one or one million people.
I actually got inspired about your earlier post (about consensus) for the middle part. You explained nicely 'The Journey to Jerusalem' and how the context of the game forces players into a certain behavior. I believe this is applicable here as well where the academic 'game' forces players into a position where they fight for recognition. I also believe there are genius players who refuse to let this take the upper hand, but although true genius always prevails, there are many stories in history where the legacy of a genius is credited to the wrong person.
And I awe at people who put aside these personal rewards and take satisfaction in the spreading of inspiration and knowledge rather than reputation and wealth, but I'm not sure if they would appreciate there efforts being credited to someone else.
But what you mention is definitely true and open source is something worth appreciating and promoting.
Glad to hear about the inspiration :)
Sure it is what you say. Someone who has contributed something essential to the gaining of knowledge with his work over the years and then sees another name taking possession of this knowledge will not appreciate it, but will probably be angry about it. The greater the frustration, the more dependent a person is on his work and the stronger his identification with his work fills his entire living space. If financial dependence is added, it is almost guaranteed that plagiarism and authorship will become the cause of conflicts. The question can only be looked at in retrospect: Has the researcher had a considerable income in his work? Could he make a living from the fruits of his labour, rent an apartment or a house, buy his food, feed a family? If so, plagiarism is still an affront. But not a life-threatening one. Only a threat to the ego. Scientists who are really interested in discovering something new, in serving people will be interested in working together and sharing their findings with others in order to contribute to the big picture. Those who meet like-minded people who see more value in cooperation than in competition will be able to achieve more in this day and age, since the time of individual thinkers seems to be over, as it was in the Renaissance and before.
Most interesting is probably the type of research that requires little financial funding. Or research that does not promise the direct application of research results, i.e. where financial profit is rather low. Still, I am hoping for a change in the long run. I think in general I am going to have trust into humans.
Also, people should make it technically easy to give credit to their works or arts just by serving an inserting text and link to their sites. If crediting is done by just one click it's more easy to do it. I see a shift here, too.