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

[Stephen Thorpe]

I find myself largely in agreement with Paul on this (not sure if that  
will come as a surprise or not?). Specifically, I agree wholeheartedly  
with the following points:
* bad information is worse than no information, perhaps a lot worse
* Not all that long ago, it was possible to point to Wikipecies as  
being the single most inaccurate source on the www [perhaps just a  
slight overstatement]
* it (Wikispecies) is a long way from standing out in a positive sense

Regarding the 3rd point, that is why I am pushing for more people with  
the appropriate skills to contribute to it. Me and my small bunch of  
fellow Wikispecies devotees can only do so much...

slightly ambiguous is Paul's claim that 'out-of-date' info isn't bad  
info. It depends on the purposes of the user. If they are a  
biosecurity officer wanting to know if an intercepted species is  
already present in the country, then a false negative through being  
'out-of-date' is indeed a bad thing!

I do also think that the faithful representation of what is claimed  
does have relevance to open vs closed source. At least, any  
misrepresentation is more easily fixed with open source. Who is going  
to fix the eol page I quoted in a previous post on Penichrolucaninae,  
which being dated 2007 implies that it represents the situation as it  
was then, but in fact overlooks a crucial 1989 publication and others  
...

Stephen

Quoting 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 * I don't see at all that 'out-of-date information' is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
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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.