[Taxacom] two names online published - one new species

[Stephen Thorpe]

>That is not correct.  As I made clear in my email, everyone has access to those logs. Just not via the website<

Then where? I would like to see.

>You're focusing on the small problem, and ignoring the larger problem -- which is that there is not yet a formal determination on how the date of availability for purposes of nomenclatural priority is even defined (see my previous email)

No, I'm not at all "focusing on the small problem"! I was simply using it as a specific example of the bigger problem. This thread has always been about that bigger problem. But the problem isn't quite as simple as you imply above. There is absolutely no problem at all for "formal determination on how the date of availability for purposes of nomenclatural priority is even defined" IF we are talking about Zootaxa (or the few others, like ZooKeys, who followed the Zootaxa publishing model). It is blindingly obvious that the electronic amendment was optimised for the Zootaxa publishing model, arguably without giving due consideration to other publishing models. I'm really not trying to be a conspiracy theorist. I'm not suggesting levels of corruption to rival FIFA or whatever! I'm just saying that an ICZN commissioner (and certainly 'a' or 'the' secretary general) should act in the best interests of zoological nomenclature, representing all stake holders (publishers, authors, readers) without favour or bias. Therefore, I am uncomfortable with any commissioner who is also owner of a major zoological publishing house. Why would you not think that they would (even subconsciously) give more weight to their own best interests?

Stephen


--------------------------------------------
On Sat, 23/1/16, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org> wrote:

 Subject: RE: [Taxacom] two names online published - one new species
 To: "'Stephen Thorpe'" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu, "'engel'" <msengel at ku.edu>, "'Doug Yanega'" <dyanega at ucr.edu>
 Received: Saturday, 23 January, 2016, 10:54 AM
 
 > This illustrates my
 point. Currently (and probably for a good while yet to
 > come) only you (plus maybe one or two
 selected others?) have access to
 > these
 logs. 
 
 That is not
 correct.  As I made clear in my email, everyone has access
 to those logs. Just not via the website.
 
 > Combined with your unrestricted editing
 rights as "Zoobank
 > keeper",
 this gives you the power (which I have no reason to think
 that you
 > have or would use, I'm
 just talking hypothetically here) to "rewrite
 history" by
 > making hidden
 retroactive changes to registration details. 
 
 Yes, this is correct - I do
 have the ability to edit the timestamp field in the EditLog
 Table, if I chose to do so.  However, what I do not have
 the ability to do is change the EditLogID value for each
 record.  This is assigned by the database automatically and
 in chronological sequence.  Thus, any effort to tamper with
 the time-stamp values (by me, or by anyone else) would be
 immediately discoverable due to a mis-match between the
 chronology of the timestamp values and the EditLogID
 values.  Moreover, the database is replicated, so there is
 a lower-level record of transaction logs managed by the
 databse itself, that I would not only need to know how to
 manipulate (I don't) but also be able to manipulate on
 all the replicated servers.  In short, although it may be
 technically possible to tamper with the editlog timestamp
 values in a way that would be difficult to discover, I
 suspect that the effort to do so would be rather substantial
 -- far more so than what I (or anyone else) has time to
 do.
 
 > Anyway, if I
 did
 > edit the record for Systematic
 Entomology, in order to introduce archiving
 > data, you might have access to those logs,
 but would you in fact notice?
 > Would a
 big red flashing light and siren alert you to this? My point
 here is just
 > that details on ZooBank
 which determine the availability of published taxon
 > names do not seem to me to be entirely
 secure or immutable. This is
 > however
 something of a side issue.
 
 You're focusing on the small problem, and
 ignoring the larger problem -- which is that there is not
 yet a formal determination on how the date of availability
 for purposes of nomenclatural priority is even defined (see
 my previous email).  Moreover, the difference between an
 un-verified registration record (i.e., all records in
 ZooBank), and a verified record (on which editing
 restrictions will be imposed) has not yet been defined.
 
 So, perhaps you might consider
 re-directing your activities from the items I listed in the
 "unhelpful" catgory, and instead focused on the
 "helpful" actions, we can have a more productive
 discussion.  Specifically:
 
 How do YOU think the date of availability for
 purposes of nomenclatural priority should be defined (see my
 previous email)?
 
 What
 criteria do YOU think should be important for including in
 the record verification process?
 
 How do YOU think that process should be
 designed?
 
 What do YOU think
 the process for amending verified records should be?
 
 I'm not trying to bait
 you.  These are legitimate questions.
 
 Aloha,
 Rich