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

[Jim Croft]

> Oh so ironic! 'Cos I see Wikispecies as a resource you (and others) can use!

If it is not original (which Wikipedia explicitly forbids in its
content) and not authoritative (no matter how 'reliable' and
'complete' the content might be), then taxonomy can not use it, other
than a quick look up for what 'might be' (and I use Wikipedia this way
all the time).

>> 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.

No argument. There is 'use' as in 'generally find out about stuff and
where to go' and 'use' as in 'rely on this as base data for derivative
research'.   The latter you would expect to cite in a research paper,
the former, perhaps not so much...

> 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! :)

No brainer.  I follow both.  In the former I look for citable evidence
that the reference is wrong.  In the latter I also do this but keep an
eye out for confirmatory evidence that it continues to be 'not wrong'.
 As for credit we have lost count of the number of AVH maps that have
appeared in papers, posters and presentations without acknowledgement
of the true source of wisdom; APNI is the most used document and data
set in Australian plant taxonomy - *nobody* ever cite it.  Don't tell
us you problems...

>> 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").

Well, it is until some other idiot (on person's idiot is another's
genius, as Taxacom can well attest) changes it back and this become
the new last word at 16:05.  In terms of taxonomy we try to account
for record *all* published 'words'.  And the work of taxonomy consists
of trying to figure out, based on the evidence, which one got it least
wrong.  My taxes are educating and paying lots of people lots of money
to do that...

jim

-- 
_________________
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