[Taxacom] Wikispecies is not a database: part 3 (after thinking about it!)

Sat Aug 8 02:44:10 CDT 2009

On 8 Aug 2009, at 02:02, Stephen Thorpe wrote:

> OK, some good issues have been brought up, but there is some  
> confusion still:
>
> (1) Is Wikispecies a database?
> I now think so again! I don't see any good reason to adopt Rod Page's
> overly narrow concept of a database, but instead see more sense in
> Tony Rees' broader concept (as per his Wikipedia article), into which
> he was (at least initially) willing to include Wikispecies. So
> Wikispecies is a taxonomic database, albeit a simple one with
> particular strengths and weaknesses. This may be more than just a
> semantic issue: someone could try to justify yet another taxonomic
> database initiative by saying 'no, no, no, Wikispecies isn't a
> taxonomic database ...'

I'm really not fussed about whether you want to call it a database or  
not, rather, I'm drawing attention to its limitations, which could be  
fairly easily fixed. But somebody could indeed easily justify yet  
another taxonomic database (YATD) by saying (correctly) that  
Wikispecies doesn't support queries. They could also argue that it has  
scalability issues, and lacks links to other digital sources (e.g.,  
DOIs to literature, links to name GUIDs). These are all fixable, but  
if they aren't addressed you're leaving the door open for YATD.

>
> (2) actually, I am not saying that Wikispecies is better than a
> database in Rod's narrow sense. I am saying that it is better (by
> virtue in part of being free and easy to update) than all these other
> similar initiatives, like EOL, TOL, Australasian/Oceanian Diptera
> Catalog, Fiji Arthropods checklists, Fauna of New Zealand catalogues,
> ..., none of which are databases in the narrow sense either. If there
> is a need for databases in the narrow sense, then that is another
> issue altogether, about which I have little opinion, except when it
> comes to the paramount importance of data quality over infrastructure.

Ease of updating is indeed a strength. I've argued several times that  
this is the major limitation of things like CoL and EOL.

>
> (3) Wikispecies was probably created as an amusement for the general
> public (or at least one deviant minority thereof!). Nevertheless, it
> is a free and already fully functional infrastructure that can be used
> as a convenient resource of useful taxonomic information. It is a very
> good database for taxonomists and other people interested in taxonomic
> information. It is not so interesting for bioinformatics people, who
> have even more "deviant" interests (just kidding!) like which part of
> the world are most new taxa being described? (Auckland, obviously -
> thanks to Zootaxa!) If you want to find out the current state of
> taxonomy of a particular family (or other group), then Wikispecies
> ought to be your first port of call. If the relevant section has been
> done, you will find an up-to-date list of taxa in that family, lists
> of relevent references (many with links to pdfs), images of taxa, and
> links to other relevant databases. It would be really good if
> taxonomists would be so good as to add such information to Wikispecies
> in their particular areas - it would contribute to a very useful
> "community resource".

Yes, all I'm arguing is that it could be substantially more powerful  
without requiring a huge amount of effort.

>
> (4) the only point on which I strongly disagree with Rod is when he
> said in his blog that Wikispecies should stick to nomenclature and not
> adopt a classification! This would be throwing the baby out with the
> bathwater! A PURELY nomenclatural database, if it is even possible,
> would be incredibly uninteresting and only of very limited utility.
> No, the model for Wikispecies which I have in mind is as an up-to-date
> synopsis of the TAXONOMY of each particular group.

But this raises the issue of how you distinguish Wikispecies from  
Wikipedia. Do we really need two wiki-based classifications? If they  
disagree, which one do I use? (I'll answer that for you, people will  
use Wikipedia). You can still have a classification (or, indeed,  
multiple ones) but a focus on nomenclature would make Wikispecies  
indispensable to taxonomists (and, properly linked to other name and  
literature databases, it would be a core biological resource).

>
> (5) so, can anybody suggest advantages of EOL, TOL, etc. over
> Wikispecies, of a magnitude that would justify the huge amount of
> money and beauracracy that goes into those initiatives? Some may see
> the fact that Wikispecies is open source (community editable) as a
> disadvantage, but I see it as open-ended peer review...

EOL and TOL are really two very different beasts when it comes to  
money and  bureaucracy .

>
> (6) the 3 most important things about any kind of taxonomic database
> are data quality, data quality, and (you guessed it) data quality!
> This is a huge topic, but just three aspects to data quality are: (1)
> how up-to-date is it? (2) how verifiable is it? (3) has it been
> compiled by someone with the appropriate levels of understanding and
> experience to be able to make proper sense of it? With regard to (3),
> I REALLY dont want to see crap (or outdated) information get locked up
> in closed sources databases, and used to make management decisions
> about biosecurity, conservation, etc.

I completely agree, and the closed databases demonstrably contain  
errors. The mistake they've made is to equate quality with expert  
authority.

>
> Summary: Wikispecies is an undervalued and underutilised resource of
> taxonomic information, which is very good for some purposes, but less
> good for others. There is a proliferation of other initiatives (EOL,
> TOL, etc.), involving huge and expensive beauracracies, which are no
> better than Wikispecies for these purposes.

I hope my replies above show that in many ways I'm on your side.

Rod

>
> 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
>

---------------------------------------------------------
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