[Taxacom] Google, Wikipedia, and Fungi

Fri Sep 4 19:21:33 CDT 2009

Hi Brian,
>though if you want to repost, feel free
I shall! You know, the most interesting thing I've learned from Taxacom is just how diverse the opinions of the taxonomic community are. Biodiversity is nothing by comparison! I actually got two off-list replies about my EOL "criticisms", but the second one says:
>I am enjoying this whole discussion.  I, too, think that EoL has got itself into a funny position; it will take more than protestations to  
>get itself straight.  we will see what happens in the future...
Anyway, to answer your comments:
>I found your allegation that the primary motivation of EOL participants is to defraud the public and
>foundations into paying their salaries, and that they're working slowly in order to maximize their income, unjustified and inflammatory
Now, correct me if I am wrong, but fraud is illegal, and I explicitly said in my email that I WASN"T suggesting that EOL was doing anything illegal, or even particularly unethical. I did NOT use the word "defraud", nor anything like it. You are putting words into my mouth, and then criticising me for using them, when I didn't!!!
Instead, I was making a more subtle point. I was suggesting that there are two factors involved in EOL. One of these is to inject some money into taxonomy (most people agree that funding is in general in short supply in this area). The other is to provide some useful output to the community. I was trying to make the point that the balance between these two factors is very different for EOL compared to Wiki. EOL has MORE of an emphasis on the former factor, while Wiki only has the latter. As for 'working slowly in order to maximize their income', that is an unavoidable consequence of any beauracracy. Whenever money is involved, people will do as little work as possible for as much money as possible. That is just economic reality. One would be naive to think otherwise. It is the nature of the beast, but Wiki is a different beast! That was my point.
Actually, that was a minor point anyway. More important was to be clear about the nature of EOL (i.e., compilation of information already scattered in the public domain, or vehicle for new and unpublished research), for this determines in part how attractive it appears to end users. Connected with this is my puzzlement over issues of intellectual property rights, for if EOL is only a compilation of existing published information, then no such issues ought to arise. I suspect a diversity of opinions regarding the scope and aims of EOL, and would like some clarification.
>Most people don't go into science to get large incomes, and (without knowing their salaries) I imagine the more
>technical members of EOL could make the same or more money in the private sector
I agree, but there is a fine line, and in my experience a fair diversity of reasons why people become (and remain) scientists, reasons which may change over time. But once again, my point was not that EOL are ONLY concerned with their own salaries, or whatever, but just a point about the relative importance of all factors in comparison to Wiki ...
I hope this clears up some misunderstandings...
Cheers,
Stephen
________________________________________
From: Brian O'Meara [bomeara at utk.edu]
Sent: Saturday, 5 September 2009 5:54 a.m.
To: Stephen Thorpe
Cc: Cynthia Parr
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Google, Wikipedia, and Fungi

I'm replying off-list, Stephen (though if you want to repost, feel
free), but just personally, I found your allegation that the primary
motivation of EOL participants is to defraud the public and
foundations into paying their salaries, and that they're working
slowly in order to maximize their income, unjustified and inflammatory
(and I'm not in EOL's pay, before you ask). It's good to have
discussion about how best to put knowledge about organisms online,
whether EOL is doing this well, whether Wikipedia alone should do
this, and so forth, but I think you need a lot more evidence than page
stubs to make blanket statements about the mercenary motivations of
its participants. Most people don't go into science to get large
incomes, and (without knowing their salaries) I imagine the more
technical members of EOL could make the same or more money in the
private sector.

Best,
Brian

On Sep 3, 2009, at 6:20 PM, Stephen Thorpe wrote:

> <snip>
>> It could also be argued that to deliver a quality product for end
>> users, focus on contribution and curation is necessary
>> Is there a problem with inviting the scientific community to be
>> involved in the process of sharing that knowledge?
> My suspicion is that EOL is "really" more about supplementing the
> income of scientists, and less about providing quality product for
> end users. In my experience, this would not be at all unusual. I am
> not even suggesting that it is unethical or wrong, and certainly not
> illegal, though I do personally find some of the propaganda
> associated with selling such projects to funders and end users to be
> a little distasteful. I am mainly though just making the point that
> Wiki, by contrast, is totally about providing quality product to end
> users.
>> I'm not sure how this results in lower information quality
> Lower info quality can result from too much of an emphasis on
> channelling money into the scientific community, and not enough
> emphasis on quality control (including keeping info up-to-date and
> FIXING errors). It is a question of relative priorities, that's all.
>
> So, I think EOL needs to be clear about its scope (synthesis of
> published knowledge, or forum for new knowledge), and not try to
> sell itself as higher information quality just because the compilers
> are recognised authorities on the taxonomy of the groups for which
> they are the compilers, and be honest about the relative difficulty
> of EOL over Wiki in being able to fix errors and keep things up-to-
> date. At present, if I browse EOL and other projects like GBIF, I
> see a complex infrastructure, but (at present, anyway), very little
> actual information, with most pages being effectively little more
> than "stubs". Realistically, projects like these will not be trying
> to become "complete" any time soon, because then most of their staff
> would no longer have a job! EOL is driven by economic reality, as
> indeed are most things. The Wikimedia foundation is no different,
> except that they do not control their content in quite the same way,
> and the content stands or falls on its intrinsic quality as seen by
> the community of end users...
>
> Stephen
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> ] On Behalf Of Cynthia Parr [parrc at si.edu]
> Sent: Friday, 4 September 2009 1:24 a.m.
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Google, Wikipedia, and Fungi
>
> Stephen Thorpe says:
>
>> The fact that EOL explicitly calls itself an encyclopedia in its
>> name, suggests that this is also the case for EOL.
>> However, then I'm confused about you saying things like "those same
>> contributors won't share their knowledge there", > and the
>> relevance of CC licensing. To my mind, what contributors to Wiki or
>> EOL do is compile knowledge that is
>> already present (but scattered) in the public domain, not share
>> their own intellectual property. Of course, if EOL is
>> actually a forum for scientists to contribute new and unpublished
>> information, that would be a whole different playing
>> field altogether! EOL would then become some kind of "open-ended
>> mega-journal".
>
> I'd rather not get into semantic arguments (we're also mulling over
> good ways to be "semantic," including adding Andy Mabbett's
> microformats!). There is no reason why compilers of knowledge on
> either Wikipedia or EOL can't be the generators of that knowledge. At
> the same time there's every reason to expect that they often won't be
> the generators of that knowledge.  EOL sensu stricto is not designed
> to be a forum for new and unpublished information, though I for one am
> open to that. There's clearly a vast amount of legacy knowledge still
> to be gathered together, some of which is either inaccessible or
> non-re-usable by the general public. Is there a problem with inviting
> the scientific community to be involved in the process of sharing that
> knowledge?
>
>> I am not familiar enough with EOL to be sure how easy it is for
>> anybody who notices an error or ommission to fix or
>> flag it.
>
> On EOL problems can be flagged (and commented on, and down-rated, and
> hidden), but not fixed. Fixing has to be done at the source. That's
> why it would be very cool to have people fixing Wikipedia, with those
> fixes reflected on EOL, because it will be much easier than trying to
> fix things in members-only databases.
>
>> Clearly, however, the focus of EOL is on the contributors rather
>> than the end users.
>
> This is sort of a chicken and egg thing. It could also be argued that
> to deliver a quality product for end users, focus on contribution and
> curation is necessary.
>
> A previous taxacom post by you
>> advertised an initiative whereby young, newly appointed scientists
>> are being offered money to contribute to EOL. I am > not suggesting
>> that there is anything inherently wrong with injecting more money
>> into taxonomy by these means, but it > rather does make EOL into a
>> very different beast from Wiki, with LESS (not none, but just less)
>> emphasis on
>> information quality for the end user, and more emphasis on
>> injecting money into taxonomy...
>
> Each early career (not necessarily young) applicant has a mentor who
> is not early career, and, we hope, the engagement of other scientists
> in their research communities. I'm not sure how this results in lower
> information quality.Yes, we are investing in taxonomy and other
> biodiversity-related sciences. And to those of you who have written,
> yes we are seeking funding so we can offer mini-grants to established
> scientists, too.
>
> In fact, it would be interesting if someone proposed to spend their
> Fellows time fleshing out and editing Wikipedia. Certainly I expect
> many proposals to beef up *other* online sources that should be
> discoverable via EOL.
>
> We all know that a program like this is just a drop in the bucket. The
> vast majority of online information about organisms will continue to
> come either from enthusiastic volunteers, the blood-and-sweat of
> scientific database builders, and scanning and digitization efforts.
>
> Cyndy
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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