[Taxacom] ZooBank revisionism!

[Stephen Thorpe]

Hi Rich,

That is better!

Cheers, Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Sun, 31/1/16, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org> wrote:

 Subject: RE: ZooBank revisionism!
 To: "'Stephen Thorpe'" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 Cc: neale at bishopmuseum.org
 Received: Sunday, 31 January, 2016, 12:57 PM
 
 Hi Stephen,
 
 You are correct: ZooBank has
 been revised. In response to the recent kerfuffle, and to
 save myself some time in cases where people want to know
 when an archive has been added to the ZooBank record (if,
 indeed, the consensus ends up being to go with the “work
 is available when all criteria have been fulfilled”
 approach), I have changed the ZooBank website to display the
 date & time on which the record was updated to show the
 Online Archive has been added.  So, if you look at the Sys.
 Ent. Record (http://zoobank.org/94AA9CFD-6807-409B-BCC0-863D0AACA0CC),
 you’ll see it listed as:
 “CLOCKSS
 (added: Jan 29 2016 10:02AM UTC) [http://www.clockss.org]”
 
 This is NOT a permanent
 solution! However, it should address the immediate concern,
 and (perhaps) save me more time in the long run than it took
 me to add this stop-gap feature.  If our pending grant
 proposal to expand ZooBank functionality is awarded, we will
 dramatically improve the overall site, including this
 feature.
 
 Aloha,
 Rich
 
 > -----Original
 Message-----
 > From: Stephen Thorpe
 [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
 > Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 12:04
 PM
 > To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 > Cc: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org;
 neale at bishopmuseum.org
 > Subject: ZooBank revisionism!
 > 
 > Following on from
 the previous thread in which we established that no
 > archival information had been added to the
 ZooBank record for the journal
 >
 Systematic Entomology, somebody (not me, as Rich can
 confirm) has in the
 > last few days added
 the missing information! This act of "revisionism"
 now
 > makes it look like all articles in
 this journal were compliant with the
 >
 Amendment when published online first, which they were not!
 I don't like this
 > at all!
 > 
 > Stephen