[Taxacom] iSpecies with Wikipedia

[Paul van Rijckevorsel]

> Roderic Page wrote:
>>Flawed because it isn't clearly separated from Wikipedia (which has
>>greater traction), has a bizarre classification, and is demonstrably
>>incomplete.

From: "Doug Yanega" <dyanega at ucr.edu>
> The "bizarre classification" problems one sees in Wikispecies reflect
> two fundamental things: (1) Wikispecies, like Wikipedia, can only
> present a SINGLE classification (no alternative schemes can be
> incorporated except as footnotes),

***
Why should this be? Has Wikipedia a "Single Point of View Only" policy?
* * *

> and (2) the classification must be a ranked Linnaean hierarchy.

***
Why should this be? A religious dogma?

An example that is neither
"from a Single Point of View" nor 
"restricted to a ranked Linnaean hierarchy":
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristolochiaceae

* * *