[Taxacom] Wikispecies is not a database: part 1

Fri Aug 7 14:52:49 CDT 2009

Hi Stephen,

Responding in part to your Blog comment, I think the point that Rod was
begging to differ on was not whether Wikispecies *is* a database, but rather
whether "it is BETTER than a database" (your quote).  Your post below has
backed off from that assertion (and I think rightly so).

What's not clear to me, however, is whether this discussion is concering
specific implementations (i.e., Wikispecies vs. Taxonomic database "X"), or
general information technology (i.e., Wikis vs. databases).  The two issues
seem to be somewhat conflated in this conversation.

It seems clear below that you are focused on the specific instance(s),
rather than the information-management paradigm. In other words, you are
arguing against the "closed" *policy* of many/most existing taxonomic
databases; not the inherent advantages of a wiki model (for information
management in general) per se.

My own perspecive on the issue resonates very much with Rod's blog post; but
a lot depends on who the data consumers are.  For example, the queries of
the sort mentioned by Rod are indeed very basic for biologists; but perhaps
not so much for regular folk (although I know some regular folk who are also
interested in such questions).  I also agree with the points made by Tony in
his blog comment. Having just caught up on the past 2+ weeks of Taxacom
posts, I resisted temptation to comment earlier on my uncertainty about
whether each Wikispecies page represents a taxon concept, or a taxon name.
The asserted classification and synonymy suggest the former; but I agree
with Rod that the potential value of Wikispecies as a model for information
management probably lies more towards the latter.

None of this is to say that I disagree with you on some of the problems you
mention concerning existing taxonomic databases.  Indeed, many of these
problems are exactly the ones we hope will be (at least partly) solved (or
at least somewhat mitigated) through the Global Names Architecture (GNA).
The goal (in my mind) is a well-structured database (with all the
querying/sorting capabilities therein), that is as easy and open to maintain
(by anyone/everyone) as a wiki page. 

Off tomorrow for another 2 weeks in the field...

Aloha,
Rich

P.S. I just now read Rod's last post, and his first paragraph captures my
main point very succinctly.  Coming from the database world, I lean more
towards the notion of "community editable databases", rather than "more
structured wikis"; but I agree they are functionally the same thing.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu 
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of 
> Stephen Thorpe
> Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 11:57 PM
> To: Tony.Rees at csiro.au; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Wikispecies is not a database: part 1
> 
> I prefer to reply in this forum rather than the blog...
> 
> OK, it is true that Wikispecies is not a database, meaning 
> that it cannot do some (important?) things that databases can 
> do. However, we need to consider the bigger picture:
> 
> (1) everything has pros and cons. Wikispecies has two BIG 
> things going for it - it is free, and it is easily kept up-to-date
> 
> (2) Wikispecies can do MANY of the key things that a database can do
> 
> (3) there is a proliferation of database initiatives in the 
> world today, all soaking up funding like a sponge
> 
> (4) all other database initiatives suffer more or less from a 
> difficulty in obtaining good information and keeping it 
> up-to-date, so the reality with such databases is that 
> although they have the ability to answer useful questions, 
> the answers they give you will be limited by the quantity, 
> quality and up-to-date-ness of the information that they 
> contain. In other words, they will give you an answer, but 
> what is that answer worth?
> 
> So, my only message is: how many more times do we need to 
> reinvent the wheel? Wikispecies exists, is free, and can be 
> used to store and retrieve vast amounts of taxonomic 
> information, so let's all just make sure that we use it to 
> full advantage. I may have said in a previous email to this 
> list that we ought to discourage the use of databases other 
> than Wikispecies, but this is wrong. Instead, we ought, I 
> suggest, to discourage the proliferation of such databases, 
> and make the most out of what we already have.
> 
> Part 2 shortly ...
> 
> Stephen
> 
> 
> 
> Quoting Tony.Rees at csiro.au:
> 
> > Also a reply from me on the same site...
> >
> > Regards - Tony
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen Thorpe 
> > [s.thorpe at auckland.ac.nz]
> > Sent: Friday, 7 August 2009 6:09 PM
> > To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk
> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Wikispecies is not a database
> >
> > replied on blog
> >
> > S
> >
> > Quoting Roderic Page <r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk>:
> >
> >> The recent discussion about Wikispecies has prompted me to write a 
> >> short blog post:
> >> http://iphylo.blogspot.com/2009/08/wikispecies-is-not-database.html
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>
> >> Rod
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------
> >> Roderic Page
> >> Professor of Taxonomy
> >> DEEB, FBLS
> >> Graham Kerr Building
> >> University of Glasgow
> >> Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK
> >>
> >> Email: r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk
> >> Tel: +44 141 330 4778
> >> Fax: +44 141 330 2792
> >> AIM: rodpage1962 at aim.com
> >> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1112517192
> >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/rdmpage
> >> Blog: http://iphylo.blogspot.com
> >> Home page: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>
> >> 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
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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