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

Thu Aug 13 23:20:59 CDT 2009

> The plan is not to reinvent Wikispecies, but to create a resource
> Wikispecies (and others) can use
Oh so ironic! 'Cos I see Wikispecies as a resource you (and others) can use!

> The reason we can not use Wikispecies/Wikipedia is, as good as the  
> content might be, is that it is too mecurial to reference
I admit that a wiki is hard to cite as a source. BUT that doesn't mean  
that you can't USE wikispecies! Wikispecies can point you in the  
direction of the latest (and other) references, can point out  
problems, etc. etc.
QUESTION (don't worry too much about details, it is the broad  
principle that matters): if you had to choose between following a  
citable reference that you knew was incorrect, or following a wiki  
that was self-evidently correct, which would you choose? Would you  
CREDIT the wiki information, or claim to have "reinvented it" for  
yourself? Think carefully! :)

> In nearly instance[every] instance, the last word is 'the word'
Disgree!!! Just because some idiot somewhere just somehow manages to  
get his flakey taxonomic opinion published at 4.00pm today, doesn't  
make his opinion 'the word'! There are typically MANY "last words"  
(you have to allow for a realistic range of times to be "current"). I  
have even seen papers published simultaneously in the same journal  
issue which use completely different classifications for the same  
taxa! The reality is just so much more complex ...

Stephen

Quoting Jim Croft <jim.croft at gmail.com>:

> Not a problem... Not a problem at all... our ALA mates next door have
> a stash of $38m in small denomination unmarked notes...  we are going
> to stand around outside their office rattling a can asking for a few
> bob in loose change... :)
>
> and,  importantly, we are not starting from scratch...
>
> The plan is not to reinvent Wikispecies, but to create a resource
> Wikispecies (and others) can use.  The reason we can not use
> Wikispecies/Wikipedia is, as good as the content might be, is that it
> is too mecurial to reference in the same way it asks its own sources
> to be referenced.
>
> On another concern you raised, who while using Wikipedia/Wikispecies
> delves into the revisions or even the discussion page? In nearly
> instance instance, the last word is 'the word'.  Taxonomy does not
> work like that. (and if anyone dares raises the 'what is a species'
> taxon concept question I will initiate a DDOS attack the likes of
> which Taxacom has not seen since Rich Pyle wrote on the subject!  ;)
>
> jim
>
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Stephen  
> Thorpe<s.thorpe at auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
>>> one of our objectives over the next two years
>>
>> I don't mean to sound impolite (who, me?!), but ONE of your objectives!
>> Crikey mate, you've got high hopes, haven't you? Two years! Well, it has
>> taken Dennis Gordon 10 years, and there are still problems in getting out
>> all of just a bare bones list of names of "everthing" in little Godzone, so
>> what chance Oz? AFD haven't managed to achieve your lofty aims, so what's
>> your secret? A hotline to the Creator???!!! Is your funding so open ended
>> that you will be able to keep adding new stuff indefinitely, quickly after
>> publication? Without knowing any details of your grand scheme, I suspect the
>> end result might just be AFD with a few extra bells and whistles. It also
>> sounds worryingly similar (albeit not identical) to reinventing Wikispecies!
>> Same genus, different species ...
>>>
>>> I didn't mean to imply 'nothing is worse than bad information', rather
>>> 'absense of information is worse than bad information'. But this too
>>> is probably moot.
>>
>> The latter is how I interpreted you. I would rather have no information on
>> an issue than incorrect information, unless you could reasonably say that
>> the "amount of incorrectness" (eh?) was within "acceptable bounds" (eh?)
>>
>> Stephen
>>
>> Quoting Jim Croft <jim.croft at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> As a 'massive bureaucrat' I have to say that one of our objectives
>>> over the next two years is to produce 'something on everything' that
>>> grows, slithers, walks, crawls, swims or flies in Australia.  That
>>> 'something' will be at least a name, a typification, a taxonomic
>>> concept, a circumscription and a literature citation.   In many
>>> (most?) cases it will link to an image, an occurrence map, a
>>> description, related names and concepts and the usual taxon profile
>>> blather, from the literature and from the databases of the planet's
>>> massive bureaucrat overlords. The design includes provision for
>>> 'citizen science'  contribution, annotation and feedback.
>>>
>>> A technical and social design challenge will be to create the seamless
>>> pipeline between this and Wikipedia/Wikispecies.
>>>
>>> For me the conversation started last week, with the GLAM-wiki
>>> (Galleries Libraries, Archives Museums) conference in Canberra.
>>> Representatives from Wikipedia and most of the major cultural
>>> collecting institutionsgathered to talk about common interests and
>>> impediments (and advantages) to sharing information in the public
>>> domain.  There are considerable gulfs of culture between Wikipedia and
>>> the GLAM community, and even within the GLAM community itself, but
>>> everyone appears to be pointing, and wanting to be going, in more or
>>> less the same direction.  The next stage will be to talk specifics and
>>> technicalities.
>>>
>>> I didn't mean to imply 'nothing is worse than bad information', rather
>>> 'absense of information is worse than bad information'. But this too
>>> is probably moot.
>>>
>>> Be wary of the phrase 'just nomenclators' - dragons lurk within and
>>> many who have entered have not emerged, or at least not emerged
>>> sane...
>>>
>>> jim
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Stephen Thorpe<s.thorpe at auckland.ac.nz>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, parts of this are in place, viz. the activities of the
>>>>> nomenclators
>>>>
>>>> Parts may be in place, but many involve massive beauracracy, and
>>>> equally massive backlogs. Also there is no attempt at "taxonomic
>>>> synthesis" by nomenclators and the like, they are really just, well,
>>>> nomenclators! Wikispecies, on the other hand, is quick, free, easy,
>>>> and synthetic!
>>>>
>>>> Also, Jim said that "nothing" was worse than bad information! A sort
>>>> of "fate worse than a fate worse than death!" Definitely a moot point,
>>>> I would say ...
>>>>
>>>> Stephen
>>>>
>>>> Quoting Tony.Rees at csiro.au:
>>>>
>>>>> Patrick LaFolette wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> My ideal PUTNI tool would include links to bibliographic citation and
>>>>>> taxonomic heirarchy, cut and paste from digital page and plate
>>>>>> images, OCR, translation assistance, the ability to code taxonomic
>>>>>> acts and errors, add notes and keywords, and link from the synonymy
>>>>>> items to the PUTNIs they indicate.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, parts of this are in place, viz. the activities of the
>>>>> nomenclators, e.g. at genus level,
>>>>> http://uio.mbl.edu/NomenclatorZoologicus/ and
>>>>> http://botany.si.edu/ing/ , at species level the work of Index
>>>>> Fungorum and others, while for original literature see e.g.
>>>>> http://www.animalbase.uni-goettingen.de/ and the BHL. Also ZooBank
>>>>> intends to be a registry of much of this stuff. The current thinking
>>>>> for establishing the relevant linkages is presumably in the realm of
>>>>> the upcoming GNA, for which I leave e.g. David Remsen to comment
>>>>> further...
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards - Tony
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>>>>> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Geoff Read
>>>>> Sent: Friday, 14 August 2009 11:49 AM
>>>>> To: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Wikispecies is not a database: part 3 (after
>>>>> thinkingabout it!)
>>>>>
>>>>> Once upon a time Syngraph was developed by Adorian Ardelean to help with
>>>>> part of that PUTNI (or applied name) organizing & distilling. It's still
>>>>> there I see. I didn't know one could easily connect it to an existing
>>>>> relational database - but apparently so ....   I might give it another
>>>>> try
>>>>> sometime!
>>>>>
>>>>> http://web.nhm.ku.edu/inverts/syngraph/beta/index.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> Geoff
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 14/08/2009 at 11:36 a.m., Pat LaFollette <pat at lafollette.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are not the only one thinking about this.  I've even coined the
>>>>>> seemingly obligatory acronym: PUTNI (PUblished Taxonomic Name
>>>>>> Instance).  Everyone I know who does taxonomic revision or other
>>>>>> systematic work makes them in one form or another.  Historically, one
>>>>>> would take notes on file cards, or photocopy taxonomic publications,
>>>>>> cut up the text and plates, add citation and notes, and arrange them
>>>>>> systematically in notebooks.  What is needed (what I need) is a
>>>>>> digital analog for the scissors and tape, a standard PUTNI object and
>>>>>> and tools to make them.  The raw material in digital format is
>>>>>> becoming available on Internet Archive and Biodiversity Heritage
>>>>>> Library; when necessary one packs up laptop and scanner and heads to
>>>>>> the library.  Who makes them?  Whoever needs them to support their
>>>>>> own research (or a hive of worker bees if funding were
>>>>>> available).  How long does it take?  That really depends on the
>>>>>> quality and efficiency of the tools, but probably a very long
>>>>>> time.  On the up-side, if done properly, it only needs to be done
>>>>>> once for each taxonomic work or group.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My ideal PUTNI tool would include links to bibliographic citation and
>>>>>> taxonomic heirarchy, cut and paste from digital page and plate
>>>>>> images, OCR, translation assistance, the ability to code taxonomic
>>>>>> acts and errors, add notes and keywords, and link from the synonymy
>>>>>> items to the PUTNIs they indicate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Patrick LaFollette
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> _________________
>>> Jim Croft ~ jim.croft at gmail.com ~ +61-2-62509499 ~
>>> http://www.google.com/profiles/jim.croft
>>> ... in pursuit of the meaning of leaf ...
>>> ... 'All is leaf' ('Alles ist Blatt') - Goethe
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> _________________
> Jim Croft ~ jim.croft at gmail.com ~ +61-2-62509499 ~
> http://www.google.com/profiles/jim.croft
> ... in pursuit of the meaning of leaf ...
> ... 'All is leaf' ('Alles ist Blatt') - Goethe
>

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