[Taxacom] data quality vs. data security: a survey

[Stephen Thorpe]

thanks Tony, but it is equally easy to pick a counterexample to disprove anything you want! :)

>and you would conclude the opposite (maybe)...

What was I concluding? That Wikispecies is better than AFD? No, actually! I was concluding (at most) that Wikispecies CAN BE better than AFD (or other similar closed edit source), but really not concluding anything but wondering if people value (perceived) data security over data quality, and your counterexample doesn't alter that ...

So, I ask again: in the particular case of Apteropanorpa (Physeter is irrelevant), does AFD (as it is) give you anything over an above what Wikispecies (as it is) gives you?

Stephen
________________________________________
From: Tony.Rees at csiro.au [Tony.Rees at csiro.au]
Sent: Friday, 12 February 2010 2:41 p.m.
To: Stephen Thorpe; TAXACOM at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Cc: execsec at nzor.org.nz; crosbyt at landcareresearch.co.nz; rgg at clear.net.nz; Alan.Flynn at maf.govt.nz; Jo.Berry at maf.govt.nz; CooperJ at landcareresearch.co.nz
Subject: RE: data quality vs. data security: a survey

Stephen,

It is easy to pick an example to prove anything you want. Compare these two pages;

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/online-resources/fauna/afd/taxa/Physeter

http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Physeter

and you would conclude the opposite (maybe)...

Regards - Tony


-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen Thorpe
Sent: Friday, 12 February 2010 12:11 PM
To: TAXACOM at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Cc: execsec at nzor.org.nz; crosbyt at landcareresearch.co.nz; rgg at clear.net.nz; Alan.Flynn at maf.govt.nz; Jo Berry; CooperJ at landcareresearch.co.nz
Subject: [Taxacom] data quality vs. data security: a survey

I would be interested in readers opinions on this simple question:

taking the particular example of the genus Apteropanorpa, does the closed edit database AFD (http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/online-resources/fauna/afd/taxa/Apteropanorpa/checklist#selected) give anyone anything useful that the corresponding Wikispecies page (http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Apteropanorpa) does not?

Note that the AFD info is 11 years out of date, but is seen by some as having somehow got "more secure" content.

My view is that the AFD info is either seriously misleading/wrong OR it is neither of those things but tells you nothing useful! It depends if it tells you when it was last updated (and I haven't checked, but I don't see anything obvious). If it doesn't, then the reasonable interpretation by a user would be that there is only one valid species of Apteropanorpa, which is wrong. If it does say that it was last updated in 1998 or something (was it even around then?), then it tells you something true, i.e., that in 1998 there was only one known (valid) species of Apteropanorpa, but that information seems to me to be of little or no practical use...

I am granting for the sake of argument that the AFD info is somehow "more secure" (closed edit), but the question is: would anyone have any good reason to use the AFD info over the Wikispecies info? Note that the question is NOT which would you prefer if both were kept equally up-to-date and reliable, but which would you prefer as things actually are ...

Comments welcome,

Stephen
_______________________________________________

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