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

[Stephen Thorpe]

> other than a quick look up for what 'might be' (and I use Wikipedia this way
> all the time)
A bit of an underwhelming evaluation - I think the wikis can be at  
least a bit stronger than that, if people try to get the most out of  
them. If you have any taxonomic expertise, and two sources tell you  
different things, then you ought to have a "feel" for which is  
correct, when full referencing and annotations are given. As for  
"original content", there isn't a clear black and white distinction,  
it is possible to make original synthesis of primary sources, using  
one's own experience to choose between alternatives. With a referral  
to the discussion page, you can actually say pretty much whatever you  
like, and since the person editing a page is known (albeit by a "nom  
de plume") via the edit history, one can treat it as authoritative or  
not depending on what you know (or learn through experience) about the  
editor.

> 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'
Fine in principle, but perhaps somewhat less than realistic in  
practice: for a start I really think it bizarre that a well  
established scientific/taxonomic fact could change at 4.00pm just  
because Fred Smith publishes a short note in ... oh, i don't know ...  
Calodema, say, and order is only restored after a "taxonomic crash  
cart" races to save the day by publishing an equally short note to  
return it back to normal! Not good for stability, for starters! Also,  
it provides the "ivory tower mob" with a seemingly justifiable reason  
to exclude all but the favoured few from being able to publish  
taxonomy that counts! Accounting for all published works is a truly  
MAMMOTH task, probably not worth the effort, but even if it were  
possible, accounting for all published works doesn't necessarily  
entail adopting them as the "current taxonomy". For example, on  
Wikispecies I cite works by the likes of Hoser, without necessarily  
adopting their proposed classifications...

Stephen

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

>> 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
>



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