[Taxacom] Zootaxa papers now in BioStor

[Stephen Thorpe]

Hi Mike,

Maybe you should indeed have kept your mouth shut in the first place! At least I am not obsessed with partisan arguments promoting technology!

>And is "easiest" the most important consideration anyway?  It's easier for rogue taxonomists to erect spurious taxa than to do the job properly, but that doesn't make it desirable

You should be a politician! You haven't quoted your own words that prompted my response - let me remind you:

>it is easier to generate wiki-type content from structured data than the reverse

It was you who was arguing that "easier is better" in the first place!

>*relatively* useless wikis are compared to structured databases (and therefore that it is more *efficient* to spend effort on structured datasets, even if that takes longer

This may be true in theory, but in practice useful information (from the point of view of content) is appearing on Wikispecies now, whereas the potential greater utility of more structured databases has yet to be realised. How long should we wait? 1 year, 10 years, 100 years, ...

>So speed and quantity are more important to you that data quality and how usefully and widely the data may be used?  Efficiency is more important IMO. Surely, if you are going to spend your valuable time entering data, you want it to be as widely and usefully available as possible?  The best things ofte take a little longer

NO WAY did I indicate that speed and quantity are more important to me than data quality, etc.! Data quality is my PRIMARY concern, and the Wiki system facilitates it BETTER than other models IMHO! It is easier to keep up-to-date, and crap data isn't locked in so can be fixed easily, simply, and quickly (speed is important in relation to error correction and updating). Maybe the best things take a little longer, but how little is little?

>>I think only cladists find it useful!
>So are you completely anti-cladist?  I am no systematist, but that seems a pretty extreme position for this century...  Does this not support my comment about luddism?
Not completely - just enough to indulge in sarcasm about it now and again! :)

>It's a bit like designing a car without any understanding of engineering- it might look fantastic, but how well will it work and how long will it last, and how easy will it be to fix, run, maintain or operate?
On the other hand, if I have to go to work today - you still being in the planning stage of designing my car because it might not suit me in 100 years time isn't much help ... Different factors need to be weighed up and compromises made. The guiding principles IMHO are content, quality and utility - but you seem to have a dirrefernt weighing machine ....

Cheers,

Stephen

________________________________________
From: Mike Sadka [M.Sadka at nhm.ac.uk]
Sent: Friday, 12 February 2010 3:30 a.m.
To: Stephen Thorpe; TAXACOM
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Zootaxa papers now in BioStor

Stephen:

I don't really have time for this (so I guess I should have kept my
mouth shut in the first place!) but...



>Perhaps, but it is far easier (and far cheaper) to create wiki-type
content period (i.e., not from structured data, but from primary
taxonomic literature)

But is it efficient?  Arguably you are likely to get more use out of
your input effort putting the content of primary taxonomic literature
into a structured database.

And is "easiest" the most important consideration anyway?  It's easier
for rogue taxonomists to erect spurious taxa than to do the job
properly, but that doesn't make it desirable.

In any case, your response misses my point.  My point is not how easy it
is to create wikis, but how *relatively* useless wikis are compared to
structured databases (and therefore that it is more *efficient* to spend
effort on structured datasets, even if that takes longer).  Structured
datasets can be used to output wiki-type content AND to keep the data
much more flexibly so that you can do other things with it too.
Generally (Rod's previous points accepted) wiki content is just wiki
content - whereas a well designed data model should support any
logically appropriate use of the data it contains, not just generation
of static/flat and hard-to-search-or-manipulate content.

That said, I would probably support a plurality of approaches for
different circumstances.  Dogma is not a good thing in IT as in anything
else.




>If resources are limited (if???), I would spend them creating as much
useful information as possible, as quickly as possible

So speed and quantity are more important to you that data quality and
how usefully and widely the data may be used?  Efficiency is more
important IMO. Surely, if you are going to spend your valuable time
entering data, you want it to be as widely and usefully available as
possible?  The best things ofte take a little longer.

The point I am trying to make is that structured data are
probably/usually much more useful and more widely useful long term.  If
you'll forgive me saying so, I get the impression that many scientists
don't really understand information management, or how databases can and
should be used to improve efficiency in all sorts of ways - and why
should they, since IT isn't their speciality.  The sadness is that many
of them do not recognise this limitation of their own knowledge and
therefore do not seek appropriate informatics collaborators - or even
up-to-date and accurate knowledge of what is possible or appropriate.

Therefore experts often consider only half the equation - the part that
pertains to their data domain - but ignore the wider IT considerations,
and don't welcome or seek the synergy between domain specialists and
informatics technicians which might actually achieve an appropriate
result from all perspectives.



>I think only cladists find it useful!

So are you completely anti-cladist?  I am no systematist, but that seems
a pretty extreme position for this century...  Does this not support my
comment about luddism?



>At any rate, to cross threads just a little bit, EOL is no better off
than Wikispecies by these arguments ...

Yes - but it is not me who appears to be obsessed with partisan
arguments about wikispecies vs EoL!    ;-)

I wasn't supporting either against the other.  My point was that none of
your stated reasons for your position re use of wikispecies appears to
be based on any consideration of the *technological* implications.

It's a bit like designing a car without any understanding of engineering
- it might look fantastic, but how well will it work and how long will
it last, and how easy will it be to fix, run, maintain or operate?


Cheerio, Mike