[Taxacom] Dirty data - WAS: i4Life Call for Pilot Projects

[Mike Sadka]

Absolutely.

And I hope you didn't take my original comments as any kind of criticism of Tropicos, Richard.  They certainly weren't intended to be, and from what I hear Tropicos is an excellent resource. 

I was just trying to bolster a general point that data quality can improve with time and user engagement - and have been told that Tropicos is a good example of that.  

Cheerio, Mike 





-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Zander [mailto:Richard.Zander at mobot.org] 
Sent: 24 July 2012 17:51
To: Mike Sadka; TAXACOM
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Dirty data - WAS: i4Life Call for Pilot Projects

Mike:

As a follow-up to your comment about improvement, Tropicos has indeed improved. I've been checking publication info by other authors intensively recently, and notice minor errors maybe once every 200 or 300 entries. So a quick means of feedback is important in a database, plus someone who will check reports of errors and fix them. 

Richard

 

____________________________
Richard H. Zander
Missouri Botanical Garden, PO Box 299, St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/ and http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
Modern Evolutionary Systematics Web site:
http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/21EvSy.htm
UPS and FedExpr -  MBG, 4344 Shaw Blvd, St. Louis 63110 USA


-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Mike Sadka
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 11:18 AM
To: TAXACOM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Dirty data - WAS: i4Life Call for Pilot Projects

 
Fair comment Richard.

I didn't intend to suggest that dirty data are always acceptable.  Only that they should not be universally despised, as they are capable of improvement.  In an ideal world, one ought to be able to know how much confidence can be placed in any particular dataset, and use it accordingly.

Cheerio, Mike