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

[Stephen Thorpe]

> why is exactly what you have stated below not within the remit of wikipedia?

Well, it might be...

Look, the real opposition here is not between Wikispecies and  
Wikipedia, nor even between Wikispecies and Rod Page concept  
databases, it is between Wikispecies and a proliferation of similar,  
but closed-source, and very expensive and difficult to keep up-to-date  
alternatives.

I haven't really checked out Wikipedia properly, but Wikispecies  
perhaps has the advantage of being navigable (browsable) using the  
taxonavigation heirarchy. As I said previously, more effort could go  
into better links between Wikis. Rod has already noted that  
Wikispecies' use of templates is an advantage over Wikipedia.

So, to recap, the real debate is between open source (community  
editable) and closed source. I see open source as allowing for ongoing  
peer-review by a broad enough range of potential reviewers to cancel  
out any biases and/or time constraints. Traditional peer review is far  
from ideal*

A related advantage of open source is that it does not exclude  
potentially valuable contributors for "political" reasons.  
Contributions survive or fall based on how self-evidently useful they  
can be written (i.e., value based purely on CONTENT, not on author)

* Just a couple of examples of peer review "issues": (1) I had to  
point out to an editor of a major local biotic inventory that the idea  
of all the other authors of a multiply authored chapter acting as peer  
reviewers of a given chapter section author doesn't work because a  
lepidopterist can't be expected to have detailed knowledge of the  
local Coleoptera fauna, etc. etc.!

(2) In the following publication:

Carlton, C.E.; Leschen, R.A.B. 2001: Species in sympatry:  
Pselaphotheseus of Campbell Island (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae:  
Pselaphinae). New Zealand journal of zoology, 28: 387-393.  
http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/Site/publish/Journals/nzjz/2001/26.aspx

it managed to get past 2 authors, 2 reviewers, and 1 editor that the  
holotype of the new species had been designated twice, with different  
data each time! Since the code says that there must be an unambiguous  
designation of holotype, it is looking like the name might not be  
available, though even this is annoyingly unclear! Some, like one of  
the authors, would consider this to be a trivial matter of no real  
importance, but it rather does make me wonder what other, less  
visible, errors are getting through into publication. Lots of things  
of little importance have a habit of adding up ...

Stephen


Quoting Tony.Rees at csiro.au:

> Dear Stephen,
>
> Forgive my naivety, but why is exactly what you have stated below  
> not within the remit of wikipedia? Is it just a matter of depth, or  
> policy, or what? Just wondering...
>
> Cheers - Tony
>
> ________________________________________
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu  
> [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen Thorpe  
> [s.thorpe at auckland.ac.nz]
> Sent: Sunday, 9 August 2009 10:54 AM
> To: dipteryx at freeler.nl
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Wikispecies is not a database: part 3 (after  
> thinking about it!)
>
> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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



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