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

[Stephen Thorpe]

Hi Mike and list,

> But I can't resist some comments on this thread

I'm glad the discussion is so gripping that you cannot hold yourself  
back any longer!

> I'm surprised that anyone would question the importance of being  
> able to query a back end data store.  What is data for if not to  
> answer questions?

No, no, straw man! Of course data is useless without the ability to  
use it for answering questions! Wikispecies will allow you to answer  
some fundamental questions relating to the current state of knowledge  
of taxa, just not as many different kinds of questions as you might  
want. But it is just as good if not better (and certainly cheaper and  
easier to use and keep up-to-date) than many other similar but  
closed-source initiatives, and could be used as a single unified (and  
free!) vehicle for such information. The sort of question that  
Wikispecies can answer is: what is the current state of knowledge of  
taxon X? What are the key recent publications, and how do these impact  
on the included taxa?

I tend to think that "developing standards" is secondary to getting  
something up and running that will allow anybody who wants to know to  
easily find out useful information on the current state of knowledge  
of taxa.

Put it another way, Wikispecies already contains better information on  
some taxa than any other available secondary source, i.e., certain  
things in other sources are outdated and/or simply incorrect, so  
looking at Wikispecies will give you information that is closer to the  
actual truth. This is quite independent of "standards".

Also, even if there is money available in these so-called "troubled  
economic times", do we really want to pay for a huge paper chain of  
beauracrats to get a new name from a publication to an available  
database, when anybody can just spend 5 minutes to put it on  
Wikispecies?

Stephen


Quoting Mike Sadka <M.Sadka at nhm.ac.uk>:

> Hi Taxacomers.
>
>
>
> I've never posted to Taxacom before - I am a techie and usually just  
> observe the learned debate <humour>and sometimes wonder how some of  
> you manage to get anything else done!</humour>
>
>
>
> But I can't resist some comments on this thread.
>
>
>
>> Wikispecies ... cannot do some (important?) things that databases can do
>
>
>
> I'm surprised that anyone would question the importance of being  
> able to query a back end data store.  What is data for if not to  
> answer questions?
>
>
>
>
>
>> (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.
>
>
>
> The term "database" has already been defined by the appropriate discipline.
>
>
>
>> From Wikipedia: "... an integrated collection of logically related  
>> records or files which consolidates records previously stored in  
>> separate files into a common pool of data records that provides  
>> data for many applications.  ..."  [my empahsis]
>
>
>
> Rod Page's concept isn't narrow - it is correct.  And I disagree  
> with Rod only in that I think it does matter what you call it.
>
>
>
> I believe it is vital to distinguish between databases and the  
> applications that allow users to interact with them.  Databases are  
> simply storage for data.  In almost all cases, users access data via  
> the intermediary of an application.  A wiki is just one type of  
> application a database might support.
>
>
>
> Wikispecies is an instance of the MediaWiki application, which uses  
> a database to store the data it presents to the user.  In principle  
> that database is queryable just like any other - but the MediaWiki  
> application interface does not expose that functionality to users.
>
>
>
> So Wiki vs Database is a false and very misleading debate.  (As  
> Richard Pyle said, this thread has arguably been about the  
> differences between closed- or open-access databases - regardless of  
> what kind of application is used to populate them.)  What is needed  
> is a data model for taxonomic information that can support all sorts  
> of applications, including wikis (as others including Jim Croft have  
> said).
>
>
>
> All this may sound unnecessarily pedantic, but IT is no different  
> from systematics in that respect!  If one doesn't use the  
> terminology correctly one runs the risk of talking from a dubious  
> orifice...
>
>
>
> In my opinion (for what it's worth) I think many of the sensible  
> things that have been suggested in this and related discussions (eg,  
> inter alia - better flow of data between grass-roots databases and  
> large aggregators) are not achievable until there are robust  
> standards for storing and manipulating taxonomic data.
>
>
>
> I would also suggest that this is less my opinion and more a  
> statement of technical reality.  All IT applications that can  
> readily exchange data need common data standards in order to do so.
>
>
>
> Development of standards is arduous, but once standards and  
> protocols are in place, applications can proliferate - just look  
> what the HTTP and IP protocols with HTML and other web technology  
> standards have done for the web in just a few years.
>
>
>
> I would totally sympathise with anyone who groans at my mention of  
> "standards" - but I don't see any getting away from that in the end.  
>  So rather than numerous competing high-level money-sapping  
> aggregation projects, it would be better (if harder to fund) to put  
> resources into developing such standards.
>
>
>
>
>
>> I just do think you [Rod] are nitpicking just a wee bit on  
>> Wikispecies' weaknesses, rather than giving due credit to its  
>> strengths
>
>
>
> Maybe - but conversely I suspect you maybe do not appreciate how  
> significant the weaknesses are.
>
>
>
> The strengths are good I agree, but those weaknesses are critical,  
> and mean that wikispecies fails to exploit the full potential of the  
> digital medium.  Without the ability to search across pages,  
> wikispecies is more like a paper book that a proper digital  
> publication (as someone else was driving at).
>
>
>
> But that doesn't mean ditch it - to me it means extend the interface  
> to include query (and other) capabilities - or use other tools to do  
> that on the same back-end datasource).  That said, effective  
> querying does depend on an effective underlying data model - which  
> brings us back to standards again - sorry!
>
>
>
>
>
>> (6) the 3 most important things about any kind of taxonomic database
>> are data quality, data quality, and (you guessed it) data quality!
>
>
>
> Absolutely!  And not just taxonomic databases - data quality is  
> always important, and that is exactly what databases are for and  
> good at.  If you want to store a lot of data you need a database.   
> You can (and probably should) build a wiki on top - but a wiki won't  
> store or protect your data.
>
>
>
>
>
> Cheerio, Mike
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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.