[Taxacom] Completion of 'The Plant List'

[Paul van Rijckevorsel]

From: "Roderic Page" <r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk>
Sent: Friday, December 31, 2010 11:28 AM

> Dear Paul,
>
> I don't think I've been entirely unobservant (e.g., my "Wikipedia as  an
> encyclopaedia of life", http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s13127-010-0028-9,
> preprint available at http://hdl.handle.net/10101/npre.2010.4242.1 ).

***
If need be, I would accept that as suggestive of being unobservant,
although it would be much more accurate to say that it shows a very
narrow perspective...
* * *

> I guess we have rather different views on Wikipedia, see also the  recent
> news piece in Nature "No rest for the bio-wikis"
> http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/468359a

***
Yes, but note that in spite of the available expertise and manpower
they are noting existing limitations. Separate projects are being set
up.
* * *

>> Even the casual user will have noted that many
>> pages with topics that depend on a good photograph or
>> illustration do not have this photograph or illustration (or
>> a very poor one), because those who hold the rights to such
>> material have (wisely) decided not to donate their material
>> to all comers, who can then do whatever they like with it.
>
>
> Wikipedia's licensing isn't quite equivalent to "who can then do  whatever
> they like with it". Typically Wikipedia content is available  under a
> Creative Commons BY-SA license, which specifically requires  people making
> use of that content to:
>
> 1. give attribution
>
> 2. if they redistribute work based on Wikipedia, they must use the  same
> (or compatible license)
>
> You may feel sharing under these conditions is unwise. Under what
> circumstances would you recommend it?

***
I have no recommendations to make to individual persons, except to
think before they leap. However, it would clearly already make a big
difference if they shifted to a license excluding commercial use.

Paul