[Taxacom] Wikispecies is not a database: part 2

[Stephen Thorpe]

... part of the "bigger picture" involves what I call funding going to  
"soft options", the proliferation of databases being one such example.  
If Wikispecies isn't as useful as a database, then it is still one  
heck of a lot better than a straight catalogue, and these are still  
being produced from money that ought to be going to real taxonomy.  
Some recent (and pending) local examples:

Larivière, M.-C.; Larochelle, A. 2004: Heteroptera (Insecta:  
Hemiptera): catalogue. Fauna of New Zealand, (50) 330 pages

Larivière, M.-C.; Fletcher, M.J.; Larochelle, A. (submitted, June  
2009): Auchenorrhyncha (Insecta: Hemiptera). Fauna of New Zealand

Larochelle, A.; Larivière, M.-C. 2001: Carabidae (Insecta:  
Coleoptera): catalogue. Fauna of New Zealand, (43) 285 pages

Larochelle, A.; Larivière, M.-C. 2007: Carabidae (Insecta:  
Coleoptera): synopsis of supraspecific taxa. Fauna of New Zealand,  
(60) 188 pages

All funded by the "defining N.Z.'s land biota"" (IO2) OBI, public  
money via FRST (Foundation for Research, Science and Technology).  
Meanwhile, since 31 Dec 2007, there has only actually been a single  
new N.Z. species described by the above authors...

All 3 of the above catalogues could have been handled better by  
Wikispecies, and the "synopsis" contribution could have been blended  
with the catalogue with only a minor increase in size of the latter  
once all the "padding" was taken out of both.

So, once again, let's just use Wikispecies to full advantage.

Data quality is paramount. The local "big" database initiative (NZOR)  
is planning to use Species2000 as a data-provider for the Insecta.  
Although some parts of it are sound, there are huge chunks which are  
under the control of people who lack the necessary skills and  
knowledge. The danger is that we might well end up with flash  
databases full of crap information. I think that my approach on  
Wikispecies (giving full referencing and making everything explicit)  
goes some way to achieving data quality.

Rod, in his blog, says that although he isn't dismissing Wikis, they  
need to get better. I don't know about Wikipedia, but Wikispecies does  
not need to get better. It does what it does very well - it just  
doesn't give you EVERYTHING you might want on a plate. But it might  
just give you good data quality, if you take the time to obtain it. In  
a perfect world, we would want a quality answer in an instant, but we  
do not live in a perfect world! Pros and cons ... Use everything to  
its full advantage ...

Stephen

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.