[Taxacom] Wikispecies is not a database

[Bob Mesibov]

Hi, Rod.

So if I leave out the bits about going digital, which was never in contention, I get to

"And for me, a key element of being digital is being able to show what we've learnt so far (as well point out how little we do know in many cases)."

Point out to whom? Haven't we had this for years in expert-built tables which estimate 'named' vs 'unnamed/undiscovered' for higher taxa? How is improving the detail on the 'named' side of the ledger going to translate to more support for the 'unnamed/undiscovered' side?

Again, I am not arguing that librarian-style 'consolidation' and linking of existing taxonomic knowledge is in principle useless. I am arguing that this has become a *substitute* for genuine taxonomy in the eyes of funders who ignorantly or cynically lump GBIF, EOL, etc together with museums, herbariums and taxonomic specialists under the heading 'biodiversity stuff'. And a great substitute it is, too, for the politically savvy: fewer new species on threatened species lists, for one thing.

The spectacular success of acronym-thinking is demonstrated in this year's Australian Government budget. The data aggregation/linking project Atlas of Living Australia got $30 million, while the taxonomy-funding Australian Biological Resources Study got $1.2 million. I am not saying - I need to repeat this - that ALA shouldn't be funded. I am asking which we need more - more taxonomy, or more ways to chew over what taxonomy generates?

And to which will the next generation, with an eye on careers and decent salaries, be attracted? It has very little to do with being digital, they'll follow the money and the glamour.
-- 
Dr Robert Mesibov
Honorary Research Associate
Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, and
School of Zoology, University of Tasmania
Home contact: PO Box 101, Penguin, Tasmania, Australia 7316
(03) 64371195; 61 3 64371195
Website: http://www.qvmag.tas.gov.au/mesibov.html