[Taxacom] Plagiarism & Public Domain

Tue Nov 30 15:29:44 CST 2010

once again Chris, I read your words, but simply can't see their relevance to the 
issue under discussion, though if this:

>but in the USA the use of any information, regards of whether it is in the 
>Public Domain or not without proper attribution is PLAGIARISM and SCIENTIFIC 
>MISCONDUCT.  And if committed by a scientist supported by US Government means 
>disbarment for government funds, etc.<

is true here in N.Z., that would certainly be good news to me, as the danger 
here is not wiki plagiarising government science, but vice versa!

back to the main point: 

>But at least for biological nomenclature, we do maintain a tradition of citing 
>sources, such as Musca domestica Linnaeus, 1758<

but the wikis *are* citing sources, both authorities for names like the above, 
and subsequent taxonomic revisions ... at least that is what *I* do ...

I suspect that you are thinking that if your Diptera database compiles some data 
on fly names which is then used by a wiki (or whoever else), then they should 
cite your database. Well, sometimes we do, but it really isn't necessary, 
especially if I link the data back to the *primary* sources (so, for example, I 
am not going to credit your database for the name information Musca domestica 
Linnaeus, 1758 if I can link it back to the original page in Linnaeus, 1758). 
Besides, GBIF uses data from COL, which uses data from your database ... so 
there can be an awful lot of redundant credit going on for the same darn bit of 
info ...

again, none of this has anything in particular to do with the "wiki" system ...

Stephen

________________________________
From: Chris Thompson <xelaalex at cox.net>
To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>; Tony.Rees at csiro.au; 
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Wed, 1 December, 2010 10:13:42 AM
Subject: Plagiarism & Public Domain

Sorry, Stephen, 

but in the USA the use of any information, regards of whether it is in the 
Public Domain or not without proper attribution is PLAGIARISM and SCIENTIFIC 
MISCONDUCT.  And if committed by a scientist supported by US Government means 
disbarment for government funds, etc.

Yes, there is a lower level of information which is considered common knowledge, 
like names, addresses, etc., which do not require attribution. But at least for 
biological nomenclature, we do maintain a tradition of citing sources, such as 
Musca domestica Linnaeus, 1758. And the botanists do it even better as they also 
cite the author and date of the circumscription.

Oh, well ...

Chris

From: Stephen Thorpe 
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 3:32 PM
To: Chris Thompson ; Tony.Rees at csiro.au ; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu 
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Mystery taxonomic compilation on the web...
Chris,
You know you are my hero ... the "flyest of the fly", but in this case I must 
protest at your apparent ignorance of the "wiki" concept! There is simply *no 
connection* between lack of attribution/plagiarism and the "wiki" concept! These 
are unrelated and independent of each other. It is very hard to know what you 
are thinking. Also, we are only talking about the compilation of already 
published taxonomic data, data that is already in the public domain but 
scattered, so attribution/plagiarism does not apply, at least not in the usual 
way.
Stephen

________________________________
From: Chris Thompson <xelaalex at cox.net>
To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>; Tony.Rees at csiro.au; 
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Wed, 1 December, 2010 2:53:30 AM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Mystery taxonomic compilation on the web...

Yes, that looks like something from Joel, but it illustrate an important issue, 
the lack of attribution.

This is one of the major problems with the "wiki" concept.

People plagiarizing information, that is, taking information from somewhere else 
and presenting it without attribution.

Joel Hallan has been doing that for years. But he is only one of many.

We have been try to build a comprehensive SCIENTIFIC database of the species and 
their names for flies (Diptera) of the World for years. Flies represent about 
10% of the known Global biodiversity. Almost from day one back in 1996, when we 
first went online at what was the Diptera site and the BioSystematic Database of 
World Diptera, I have been surprised to see the number of people / websites that 
have harvested our names and not given proper attribution*. Yes, everything is 
"free" online, but ...

The hallmark of SCIENCE is both peer-review and respect for previous work, which 
the "wiki" concept and other online entities ignore.

And for the users this means they do not get the best and most up-to-date 
information.

As they do not know the original sources, where they probably can be BETTER and 
MORE current information and the QUALITY assessment factors are stripped out.

For example, every record in our now Systema Dipterorum has an indicator telling 
the user status of the information. For example, whether it has been 
peer-reviewed and if so, by whom and when. And individual records may also have 
annotations. This critical information is lost to the user when people simply 
sweep up the names from our website.

And as this "mystery taxonomic compilation," clearly documents this as it has 
links to our OBSOLETE old BioSystematic Database of World:
Nomenclator,Biosystematic Database of World Diptera 
http://198.77.169.80:591/FMPro?-db=names.fp3

That database, while still accessible, is obsolete, not updated since the summer 
of 2008, before USDA abolished my research program. The more appropriate 
database is Systema Dipterorum*, accessible at http://www.diptera.org/  and 
being now served from Copenhagen.

Oh, well ...

Sincerely

Chris Thompson
from home

*For the technically interested, we now have close to a quarter of million names 
online today, representing what are reported in the literature as some 160,000 
species (extant and fossils). And with so many names, there are a few errors 
which we, ourselves, have made. Hence, I can ever tell the version people have 
taken by searching for the unique records!

-----Original Message----- From: Stephen Thorpe
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 10:07 PM
To: Tony.Rees at csiro.au ; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Mystery taxonomic compilation on the web...

looks like it is taken from Joel Hallan's Biology Catalogue? At any rate, a
quick glance at areas I know well shows it to be on the right track but not
completely correct or up-to-date ...

________________________________
From: "Tony.Rees at csiro.au" <Tony.Rees at csiro.au>
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Tue, 30 November, 2010 1:52:35 PM
Subject: [Taxacom] Mystery taxonomic compilation on the web...

Dear all,

I have just come across this on the web - mildly surprised that I had not found
it before, and was wondering if anyone knows anything of the compiler:

http://mave.tweakdsl.nl/tn/index.html

There seems to be a lot of information contained but no person name responsible
or contact details so far as I can see...

Any advice welcome! particularly from our Dutch colleagues, maybe?

Best regards  - Tony
_______________________________________________

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 