[Taxacom] iSpecies with Wikipedia

[Paul van Rijckevorsel]

From: "Richard Pyle" <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
> Thanks, Paul.

> My reference to digitization of "neural connections within human brains"
> was intended mostly as a fancy way of saying "streamline the manuscript
> generation process, in a way that captures structured digital data".  I'll
> leave the discussion of copyright issues (and possible ways around them)
> to Donat Agosti; but one presumes that when scientists transcribe the
> "neural connections" to a manuscript intended for publication, their 
> intent is to make that information accessible to everyone else. Capturing 
> that information in a structured, digital form at the time of MS 
> generation, such that it can be made available and more discoverable via 
> the internet,  only enhances the accessibility.

> I completely agree with you that there are parts of the neural connections
> that are not easily transcribed to either ink-on-paper or structured
> digital information.  Although it would be fantastic to find a way to more
> effectively capture that somehow; my point was concerning the less
> ambitious goal of streamlining the existing process of information
> dissemination.

> As to the "cost or encumberance"; the point was that I believe there are
> ways to reduce the *existing* cost and encumberance that scientists
> already endure when transcribing information into manuscript form,
> intended for ink-on-paper publication.  Many cyber-reluctant taxonomists
> immediately assume that extra work will be required in order to make their
> results and conclusions available in electronic form -- that is, extra
> work over and above the work they already do in preparing manuscripts.

> My point is that with the right software, we could have a "win-win"
> situation where manuscripts are easier to generate than they currently are
> with standard word processors (e.g., via automatic capture and formatting
> of morphological and molecular character data into tables, diagnoses and
> descriptions; synonomies; Bibliographic citations; etc.; etc.), *AND* the
> underlying information can be available simultaneously as both a formatted
> MS intended for paper-based publication and as structured electronic data
> (TaxonX/taXMLit, SDD, TCS, etc.) -- thereby alleviating the need for
> someone else to retroactively scan/capture the information in a structured
> electronic form.

> Put another way, it's easier to generate a publishable MS from structured
> electronic information, than it is to retroactively capture structured
> electronic information from a published MS.
 
> Most of the component pieces already exist to do this (e.g., DELTA, SDD,
> TCS, and various other TDWG standards & protocols). We just need a
> software application that can harness all of this stuff in a way that
> saves a taxonomist time in generating manuscripts, while simultaneously 
> generating structured information behind the scenes. The tricky part is 
> making this software luddite-simple to use.

> Thus, my inclusion of the word "net" in "without any net cost or
> encumberance to practicing taxonomists" was intended to mean "as compared
> to the cost and encumberance taxonomists already endure when generating
> manuscripts".  And in this context, speaking as an "old-school"-trained
> morphology-based alpha taxonomist, yes -- I do see this as one of the keys
> to moving forward with taxonomy.

> Aloha,
> Rich

***
Thank you for the clarification.

Nevertheless, it looks to me that if EoL is to become a long-term success, it will have to become more than a rendering of the existing taxonomic literature (and of taxonomic manuscripts due to be published). It will make a great deal of difference if EoL manages to attract information not so far published (and not otherwise due to be published soon).

Paul