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

[dipteryx at freeler.nl]

Two basic points: 
* it looks to me that bad information is worse than 
no information, perhaps a lot worse. The amount of effort
it takes to correct bad information after the fact can
be many times of what it would have taken to do it right
in the first place.
* I don't see at all that 'out-of-date information' is 
bad information; at some point all information turns into 
historical information. If it was good to begin with, 
it will remain of value.

As to the question of "open source" versus "closed-source", 
this is not the distinction that looks immediately useful. 
I tend to distinguish between pages that faithfully represent
that which they claim to represent and those that just splash 
down something for quick and popular effect. All too often, 
content on "open source"-websites belongs in the second category. 

Not all that long ago, it was possible to point to Wikipecies
as being the single most inaccurate source on the www. This may
have changed, and maybe the point has been reached where 
Wikispecies (in general) is no longer an embarrassment, and that
it is possible to use it with a degree of confidence, but it is
a long way from standing out in a positive sense.

For the moment, my hope lies with the bottom-up approach.

Paul van Rijckevorsel