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

[Stephen Thorpe]

Hi Paul,

By "taxonomic information", I mean current information on a particular  
taxon, expressed primarily in the form of literature references, a  
list of included taxa (could be disputed, but that can be pointed out  
and should be easily seen from the references anyway), and some sort  
of taxonomic history for the relevant taxa (i.e., were they ever  
considered synonyms? Has the species been placed in different  
genera?). Images and links are also helpful. Wikispecies can give you  
these things in at least many cases. Most of the actual taxonomic  
information (morphology, phylogeny, etc.) is in the references, rather  
than repeated on the Wikispecies pages. If however, what you are  
looking for is the COMPLETE taxonomic history of the house mouse, all  
the way back to Linnaeus (1758), then I'm not sure where you would go  
...

So, Wikispecies answers questions of the form: what is the current  
state of knowledge of taxon X? Who is working on it? What is the (or  
a) current sensible view on the composition of the taxon? Where can I  
look for more info?

Cheers,

Stephen

Quoting 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
>
>
>



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