[Taxacom] Wikispecies is not a database: part 2

[Stephen Thorpe]

Hi Paul,

> I think there is a message there

I'm sure there is, but your message isn't entirely clear. Are you  
saying that databases rule, and both 'ink on paper' and Wikis are  
pointless? At any rate, I hope you take my point that a database is  
only as good as the information in it, and data quality, in my  
experience, gets put into the "oh, we'll sort that one out last -  
providing the funding doesn't run out!" basket. There is a big  
"placebo effect" with closed source databases. I guess I'm pushing for  
a middle ground, where we can somehow harvest the good points of all  
methods. Like you, I'm certainly not in favour these days of churning  
out endless hard copy catalogues and pretending that it is science!  
But then there is the other extreme where certain people think that  
only cladistics and molecular taxonomy are "science". The extremes  
seem to be getting more and more extreme ...

Cheers,

Stephen

Quoting Paul Kirk <p.kirk at cabi.org>:

> these 'ink on paper' products should be derived from databases ...  
> it's not rocket science 'cause I can do it - those who still use a  
> word processor to produce taxonomic products should move out of the  
> 20th century into the 21st ... ;-)
>
> In the real world (outside taxonomy) what are the primary tools used  
> by publishers, governments, banks, insurance companies, the retail  
> trade etc etc etc to store and manage content - it aint Wikis its  
> databases/datawarehouses ... I think there is a message there ... ;-)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Paul
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu  
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen  
> Thorpe
> Sent: 07 August 2009 11:27
> To: Tony.Rees at csiro.au; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Wikispecies is not a database: part 2
>
> ... 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either  
> of these methods:
>
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Or (2) a Google search specified as:   
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>
> Find out about CABI's global summit on 'Food security in a climate  
> of change' at www.cabiglobalsummit.com
> 19 - 21 October 2009, London, UK.
>
> ************************************************************************
> The information contained in this e-mail and any files transmitted  
> with it is confidential and is for the exclusive use of the intended  
> recipient. If you are not the intended recipient please note that  
> any distribution, copying or use of this communication or the  
> information in it is prohibited.
>
> Whilst CAB International trading as CABI takes steps to prevent the  
> transmission of viruses via e-mail, we cannot guarantee that any  
> e-mail or attachment is free from computer viruses and you are  
> strongly advised to undertake your own anti-virus precautions.
>
> If you have received this communication in error, please notify us  
> by e-mail at cabi at cabi.org or by telephone on +44 (0)1491 829199 and  
> then delete the e-mail and any copies of it.
>
> CABI is an International Organization recognised by the UK  
> Government under Statutory Instrument 1982 No. 1071.
>
> **************************************************************************
>
>
>
>



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