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

[dipteryx at freeler.nl]

Van: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu namens Stephen Thorpe
Verzonden: za 8-8-2009 11:49

[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. 

***
This looks weird to me, although it will likely come down to semantics, 
especially what one takes to be "taxonomic information". As I read this 
it means "information on taxonomy" which includes the various positions
and circumscriptions of the taxa in question and the nomenclatural history. 

This as opposed to the preferred classification that is being used (which 
might be described as "The Taxonomy (of the taxonomic group)" for those
supporting it or as "A Taxonomy (of the taxonomic group)" for those not 
supporting it). The classification used is only "the" (or "a") conclusion,
the end result; the outermost layer of veneer or paint; the icing on the 
cake, not the cake itself; it is not the substance. Or in other words 
"taxonomic information" is everything except the classification itself.

To me, Wikispecies holds no taxonomic information at all (except by 
accident), what Wikispecies offers is a classification, a Tree-of-Life. 
As it is currently set up it does indeed force a single classification, and 
this appears not all that likely to change (by now, a change would mean an 
alteration of the nature of the project). This single classification has its 
good points and its bad points, as argued earlier. It is an approach with 
practical value, but limited.

The fact that the English Wikipedia has a Tree-of-Life project which 
essentially aims to do the same as Wikispecies (i.e. force a single classification 
and exclude everything else) is a historic accident only. In and by itself, 
Wikipedia would be excellently suited for taxonomic information, with its central
policies of "No Original Research", "Neutral Point of View" and "Verifiability". 
If things had gone differently and the central policies had prevailed over the 
narrow interests there might have been a lot more taxonomic information in it by 
now. 

Paul