I agree with you that this isn't a persuasive approach. But I'm cutting to the chase.
If anyone is working on this—helping onboard academics and non-programmers to git—this is an idea I'm looking to support (as an investor, donor, or whatever).
If anyone is working on this—helping onboard academics and non-programmers to git—this is an idea I'm looking to support (as an investor, donor, or whatever).
I'm guessing what you really want is:
1) open formats for data
2) plain text instead of proprietary blobs
3) the ability to replicate calculations easily
4) the ability to see some sort of evolution or mistake-fixing in the project's history.
I have seen 50 startups that have pitched building a shittier version of git for academics because they can't be bothered to spend time reading the internals of git and have no idea how well done it is.
I suspect git would make a fine back end for a more polished product for scientists. A github for scientists sounds very interesting.
Agreed! That could be a winning idea.
Rather than 'mistake fixing', what I want out of a project's history is evidence that the author hasn't done some form of p-hacking. But that purpose can be served just as well by preregistration. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preregistration_(science)