[Taxacom] Wikispecies is not a database: part 3 (after thinking about it!)
Stephen Thorpe
s.thorpe at auckland.ac.nz
Sat Aug 8 04:49:08 CDT 2009
[Rod Page said] 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).
[reply] Wikipedia is not well suited for taxonomic information, which
is why Wikispecies was created. Wikipedia is like a library of books
on taxonomy, and just like any real taxonomic section of a real
library, there is no coordination or consistency. Wikispecies, on the
other hand, forces articles into a single classification. I agree that
we could develop better links to Wikipedia articles from Wikispecies
articles, but for now my main concern is to get taxa on to Wikispecies
and iron out problems with existing articles (a huge task in itself).
Besides, the associated talk/discussion pages of taxon pages are
effectively blank Wikipedia articles which can be filled in.
Wikispecies already does have a FOCUS on nomenclature, but can also
address wider taxonomic issues. I can't stop people choosing to
believe an incorrect Wikipedia page instead of a correct Wikispecies
page. A taxonomist should see Wikispecies as a vehicle to organise and
monitor information on their group of interest, and time can be saved
on doing literature searches by having all the relevant references set
out on Wikispecies with links to pdfs where available (many of which
have to be hunted for on the web and don't show up in a Google
search), along with lists of included taxa and discussion of any
problems. Also, my Wikispecies articles ARE linked to other databases.
[Rod Page] > Yes, all I'm arguing is that it could be substantially
more powerful without requiring a huge amount of effort.
[reply] Well, if you think it can be improved, go ahead and improve it!
[Rod Page] > I completely agree, and the closed databases demonstrably contain
> errors. The mistake they've made is to equate quality with expert authority.
[reply] Yes, and what is more, "expert authority" disturbingly often
comes down to who wields the biggest stick, rather than who actually
knows their stuff the best. It is far too simplistic to think that
those with the most reliable knowledge are necessarily those good
positions with the best qualifications. Those with good positions and
the best qualifications are sometimes just the most aggressive and
ambitious.
[Rod Page] > I hope my replies above show that in many ways I'm on your side.
[reply] Absolutely - I do have my enemies, but you are not among them!
I just do think you are nitpicking just a wee bit on Wikispecies'
weaknesses, rather than giving due credit to its strengths, but we can
work on that ...
Cheers,
Stephen
Quoting Roderic Page <r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk>:
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list