[Taxacom] Does the species name have to change when it movesgenus?

[Paul van Rijckevorsel]

From: "Daniel Mietchen" <daniel.mietchen at googlemail.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 9:59 PM

[...]
> The "glamourosity" of taxa has a strong impact on whether they will
> have Wikipedia articles, in how many languages and at what quality
> level. It has rather limited effect on the position of the Wikipedia
> entry on the search engine results pages for relevant search terms.

***
Last time I looked, any new page in Wikipedia is picked up
by Google almost instantaneously, so yes, it does not matter.
* * *

>> Making an entire article available
>> should guarantee a good Wikipedia article;

> "Facilitate" may be a better term here - "guarantee" is certainly not
> right. For instance, taxonomic papers are written for a rather
> specialist audience and Wikipedia entries for the public, which
> requires a different writing style.

***
In theory perhaps, but in practice this does not appear to matter.
* * *

> Indeed, a lot of copyright violations happen on the various
> Wikipedias, on Wikimedia Commons and on related projects. However,
> they rarely come from "the average Wikipedian" and typically last on
> the order of minutes to days and thus shorter than elsewhere on the
> interwebs.

***
I am always wary of such claims. At some point Wikipedia claimed
to find and revert vandalism within x minutes. Upon looking closer
it proved this was a calculation based on vandalism found and
reverted as being vandalism. In other words this expressed the
efficiency of the vandalism reversal-mechanism where this does
work as such. It did not take into account all the vandalism
undetected for months or years (or longer) or any vandalism
reverted with another summary.
* * *

> Wikimedia projects themselves are widely
> misattributed (or not attributed at all) as a source of information,
> indicating that the copy-and-paste mentality is a wider problem - for
> some examples involving SpringerImages and other academic and news
> media, see
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-06-11/Special_report

***
This is interesting to read. Indeed it is not surprising that the
Bundesarchiv found their images misused and gave it up.
Newspapers also copy from Wikipedia without attribution,
not to mention those who publish books copied from Wikipedia.

The license under which Wikipedia operates does not
necessarily work out well, another license might have worked
better, but we will never know.

Paul