[Taxacom] Wikispecies is not a database

[dipteryx at freeler.nl]

Hi Stephen,

It is quite possible that the page on Hemirhipidiinae is in good order
(I could not say) but I am not impressed by, say, the page on Guamatelaceae
http://species.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guamatelaceae&oldid=408806

which claims to follow APG II (2003), but in reality (the family was 
described in 2006) is following the Angiosperm Phylogeny Website (that 
being the source that is prominently present online) and also has a 
"Ordo Unassigned Eurosids I" and a "Cladus Unassigned Rosids", both taxa 
which look to be new to science. So, I am all in favour of being clear on 
what classification is being followed, and then actually following it 
(instead of 'improving' on it).

When Richard Pyle remarks that "the potential value of Wikispecies as a 
model for information management probably lies more towards the latter." 
[i.e. "each Wikispecies page represent[ing] a taxon name"] this certainly 
represents the orthodox view: in setting up a database (or an encyclopedia) 
the default way to do this is to have a page for each name; anything else 
courts disaster.

This is not to say that this is the only possibility; but any other approach
will of necessity have a narrow focus, requiring a rigid frame of reference,
a single point of view. Wikispecies can indeed choose to adopt this limited 
approach, of offering a single classification, hopefully 'up-to-date', 
and this will be of value to some or perhaps even most users, as a first port
of call, if nothing else. Of course, the question of who the data-user is and 
what he wants is indeed of critical importance here. 

So, in my view Wikispecies can continue to do what it is doing, but would be
well advised to be more clear about what exactly it is doing (i.e. offering a
single classification, a single Tree-of-Life, rather than being a regular
database) and be more consistently clear about what or whose classification
is being followed in each particular case. 

Paul 

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:s.thorpe at auckland.ac.nz]
Verzonden: za 8-8-2009 3:41
Aan: dipteryx at freeler.nl; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Onderwerp: RE: [Taxacom] Wikispecies is not a database
 
Hi Paul,

To clarify some of your questions about Wikispecies: we are still in  
an experimental phase, trying to develop ways to maximise the  
potential of the infrastructure, but, basically, my understanding of  
what Wikispecies is goes something like this:
Wikispecies is primarily a classified bibliography, which attempts to  
provide the reader with an accurate and up-to-date overview of the  
current taxonomic knowledge of a given group, by way of listing  
included taxa, relevant references, images, links to other websites,  
and comments. For example, if you want to find out the current state  
of taxonomy of Hemirhipidiinae (an obscure group of beetles), look at:

http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Hemirhipidiinae

there you will find listed lots of useful references (including  
references from as recently as 2009), and a list of genera explicitly  
taken from one of those references. More details can be found on the  
pages for those genera. Wikispecies currenly appears to be the only  
secondary source on Hemirhipidiinae which has kept up with the most  
recent primary taxonomic literature, and contains the only up-to-date  
checklist of all Hemirhipidiinae taxa.

Because of its structure, Wikispecies has to adopt a single particular  
classification. The trick is to choose one which is both sensible and  
current, and to include references to any live alternatives ...

Cheers,

Stephen

Quoting dipteryx at freeler.nl:

> Obviously I am supporting the assertion that the last thing we need  
> are more top-down database initiatives (but yes, we could do with  
> more bottom-up initiatives).
>
> I am not at all sure how what Wikispecies claims to be doing relates  
> to what it actually is doing, but what it is doing is building a  
> unique classification, a Tree-of-Life, down to species level. It  
> thus distinguishes itself from Wikipedia, which should offer  
> encyclopedic content, rather than build new things.
>
> Thus, the role Wikispecies has chosen for itself is a very narrow  
> one; theoretically (depending on the quality and quantity of its  
> collaborators) it could offer a huge checklist of accepted taxa.  
> This would be of at least some value to the world (even as no more  
> than just a quick-and-dirty directory), although obviously, even if  
> functions optimally it will tend to be brittle (offering a single  
> classification where in reality there often will exist two or more  
> equally likely views).
>
> The single most useful improvement that Wikispecies could adopt is  
> to be more clear, firstly about what it is doing, and secondly about  
> what, or whose, classification is adopted in particular cases.
>
> Paul van Rijckevorsel
>



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