[Taxacom] The Semantic Web and LOD would allow everyone to contribute without needing a huge "ministry of truth"

[Stephen Thorpe]

yes, but there is a very fine line between letting everybody have a say, and 
effectively saying nothing (just listing the differing opinions). I may not have 
made myself clear, but I say let verifiability be the guide (in the context of 
synthesis of taxonomic info), so we don't have to put our faith in the authority 
of so-called experts any more than we have to (i.e., only at the primary 
taxonomic level, at which what you describe DOES apply). There are different 
issues going on in this thread, but my message here is that we need to put to 
sleep the old ways of being presented with checklists and suchlike in hard copy 
form, which we cannot verify or refute or correct, and which we have to simply 
trust the author(s) THAT is not science, nor is it useful, and wikis are a far 
better way to go for that stuff ...




________________________________
From: Peter DeVries <pete.devries at gmail.com>
To: Chris Thompson <xelaalex at cox.net>
Cc: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>; "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" 
<Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Tue, 16 November, 2010 2:06:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] The Semantic Web and LOD would allow everyone to 
contribute without needing a huge "ministry of truth"

Thank you Chris, 

I originally posted this after reading the thread that suggested that we need 
some master ministry of truth that we are all slaves to.

For example: "you must use this classification", or this particular name.

It is not as if I am against this in theory it is just that the people who will 
control this will have gotten their position via one selection process, while 
the person who might provide the "best" answer operates under a different 
selection process.

There is alternative and that would be to let everyone expose their data and 
opinions and have the wisdom of the crowd determine who is the most credible.

This would not crush differences of opinion etc, since they will still persist 
in the cloud.

Respectfully,

- Pete


On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Chris Thompson <xelaalex at cox.net> wrote:

Thanks, Pete:
>
>Please note that I did add the caveat about peer-review not being perfect.
>
>Yes, for examples, 
>
>what can you do when there are NO peers, or
>what can you do, when all the “peers” believe in the same paradigm, such as the 
>creation “scientists,” who reveiwed a clearly non-scientific paper on 
>creationism and approved its publication.
>
>So, yes, you are correct, in that peer-review when possible set a MINIMUM 
>standard before publication.
>
>And, yes, the most important part of the scientific process is the subsequent 
>testing, re-testing, etc., of published hypotheses. That is, SCIENCE.
>
>Peer-review is the minimal FILTER to save time of real scientists from having to 
>test bogus hypotheses, etc.
>
>Enjoyed your comments. They are very useful to focus our thoughts.
>
>
>Sincerely,
>
>
>Chris
>
>
>From: Peter DeVries 
>Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 4:36 PM
>To: Stephen Thorpe 
>Cc: Chris Thompson ; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu 
>Subject: Re: [Taxacom] The Semantic Web and LOD would allow everyone to 
>contribute without needing a huge "ministry of truth"
>
>I am proposing you simply ignore the LOD data that you are unsure about.
>
>The data you do trust and use is cited in your derivative work.
>
>How many journal reviewers type in the manuscripts lat and long values to see if 
>they are where they are supposed to be?
>
>How many journal reviewers have access to the original data to they can test the 
>validity of an analysis?
>
>
>- Pete
>
>
>On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> 
>wrote:
>
>peer review is a pre-publication process, often done under time pressure by 
>people who may not be good "details" people
>>
>>the function of peer review, as I understand it, is just to make sure that 
>>anything published is up to a MINIMUM standard
>>
>>surely, the real deal comes after publication, when the publication can be 
>>scrutinised at length by anybody and everybody in their own time - that is when 
>>the crap gets filtered out ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
________________________________
From: Peter DeVries <pete.devries at gmail.com>
>>To: Chris Thompson <xelaalex at cox.net>
>>Cc: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>>Sent: Tue, 16 November, 2010 9:41:46 AM
>>Subject: Re: [Taxacom] The Semantic Web and LOD would allow everyone to 
>>contribute without needing a huge "ministry of truth"
>>
>>
>>Hi Chris,
>>
>>The peer review comes in when others decide to cite your contribution or
>>choose not to cite your contribution.
>>
>>The version can be determined by the date stamp on the record, and perhaps
>>some sort of checksum.
>>
>>I was thinking of mainly in reference to species occurrence records,
>>checklists etc.
>>
>>However, I have been wondering how someone could responsibly peer review a
>>taxonomic description without access to the specimens?
>>
>>Also for many taxa there are very few people who could properly review a
>>description.
>>
>>Often the only living expert is the author.
>>
>>More often than not, no one dares to really examine and revise the
>>description until after the author has died.
>>
>>- Pete
>>
>>On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Chris Thompson <xelaalex at cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry, Pete,
>>>
>>> But while that may appear to be "very democratic," etc., but
>>>
>>> the hallmark of Science, as opposed to everything, is PEER-REVIEW.
>>>
>>> Yes, we do know there are problems with peer-review, but it remains the
>>> only mechanism to ensure that the public gets the BEST and most appropriate
>>> SCIENCE. [that has remained true since Henry Oldenburg started publishing
>>> the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society in 1665]
>>>
>>> And the other thing that peer-review mandates, is version control. That is,
>>> once the process is done, that version becomes a fixed point in the
>>> Scientific process.
>>>
>>> Your approach sound much like the wikipedia, wikispecies, etc., where
>>> anything can be throw out online and the Public may think it is Science.
>>>
>>> Yes, ICZN does not require peer-review. And only the minimal scientific
>>> standards. So, your suggestion would allow everyone to contribute at least
>>> in terms of names and nomenclatural acts once the ICZN recognizes and it is
>>> should digitial / online publication. But it will not serve the Public well.
>>>
>>> There is an old adage from the early days of computers, GIGO. Garbage IN,
>>> Garbage OUT. This remain very true today, so SCIENCE needs to be careful or
>>> it will lose its respect from the Public.
>>>
>>> Oh, well ...
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message----- From: Peter DeVries
>>> Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 2:56 PM
>>> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>>> Subject: [Taxacom] The Semantic Web and LOD would allow everyone to
>>> contribute without needing a huge "ministry of truth"
>>>
>>>
>>> On of the features of the semantic web and the Linked Open Data cloud is
>>> that they allow anyone who can post markup data to a web server to
>>> contribute.
>>>
>>> You  simply markup your data at a particular URL and then ping the semantic
>>> web to tell everyone that it is there.
>>>
>>> http://pingthesemanticweb.com/
>>>
>>> This would allow individual institutions and individuals to contribute
>>> their
>>> own data.
>>>
>>> Very democratic.
>>>
>>> If you don't agree with a particular contribution then just choose to
>>> ignore
>>> it in your analysis.
>>>
>>> Respectfully,
>>>
>>> - Pete
>>>
>>> --
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Pete DeVries
>>> Department of Entomology
>>> University of Wisconsin - Madison
>>> 445 Russell Laboratories
>>> 1630 Linden Drive
>>> Madison, WI 53706
>>> TaxonConcept Knowledge Base <http://www.taxonconcept.org/> / GeoSpecies
>>> Knowledge Base <http://lod.geospecies.org/>
>>> About the GeoSpecies Knowledge Base <http://about.geospecies.org/>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>-- 
>>---------------------------------------------------------------
>>Pete DeVries
>>Department of Entomology
>>University of Wisconsin - Madison
>>445 Russell Laboratories
>>1630 Linden Drive
>>Madison, WI 53706
>>TaxonConcept Knowledge Base <http://www.taxonconcept.org/> / GeoSpecies
>>Knowledge Base <http://lod.geospecies.org/>
>>About the GeoSpecies Knowledge Base <http://about.geospecies.org/>
>>------------------------------------------------------------
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>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
>>
>> 
>
>
>-- 
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>Pete DeVries
>Department of Entomology
>University of Wisconsin - Madison
>445 Russell Laboratories
>1630 Linden Drive
>Madison, WI 53706
>TaxonConcept Knowledge Base / GeoSpecies Knowledge Base
>About the GeoSpecies Knowledge Base
>------------------------------------------------------------
>


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pete DeVries
Department of Entomology
University of Wisconsin - Madison
445 Russell Laboratories
1630 Linden Drive
Madison, WI 53706
TaxonConcept Knowledge Base / GeoSpecies Knowledge Base
About the GeoSpecies Knowledge Base
------------------------------------------------------------