[Taxacom] Have you named a taxon?

Sat Mar 18 10:02:42 CDT 2017

HI Roderic and Andy,

from Roderic,

1. As a source of references to locate in BHL and add to BioStor
2. Locating DOIs for reference that have them but Wikispecies is unaware of
this
3. Using Wikispecies and Wikidata to link articles in BioStor (and
elsewhere) to articles about authors, see http://iphylo.blogspot.co.
uk/2017/01/the-biodiversity-heritage-library-meets.html

I agree with this and in the discussion Andy linked I did state that
Wikispecies needs to do something to standardise this and recognise this
issue. Particularly those refs that do have DOI's. I get you and other
users want to data mine Wikispecies. It should be possible. I want to
change the current system. But I have to work with the editors there. The
main space editors who do the taxonomic input. We need them and we need
more of them. A number of these taxonomists are older semi retired, they
are not familiar with modern systems of datamining. I have to walk a tight
line between encouraging them to modernise, and respecting their comfort
zones. Basically shoving it down their throats they will walk. Wikispecies
is a voluntary site. It has to be little steps. Get consensus.

Andy,

I am of course very familiar with that discussion, and several previous
ones. Yes the vote on Wikispecies referencing that has been agreed to was
based on two issues, how it rendors and ease of use. Personally I did not
completely agree with it, for example I have no care for the small caps
they want to use, it is not relevant. I think it should basically rendor to
look like a Zootaxa reference. But it does not matter, community decided.
So I do it. You have two current difficulties with getting them to listen.
One is ease of use. In the absence of a DOI the cite journal template is a
pain in the butt to use. It also is very difficult to use with unusual
references, ones with multiple sets of page spans, plates etc. I also do
not think it handles edited volumes very well. Your second problem is that
every time you bring it up you tell them they must do this so wikidata can
mine wikispecies for information more effectively. Not all the taxonomists
there believe wikidata is a good thing. That is something you need to work
on. I suggest two things, first actually make a proposal, which I tried to
hint to you in that discussion when I said there is no proposal there.
Second you need to show them that it is to their benefit as wikispecies
editors. Not to Wikidata's benefit only. It is an issue that requires
tact.  My two cents there.

Cheers Scott

On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 8:26 AM, Roderic Page <Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk>
wrote:

> Hi Scott,
>
> Thanks for the thoughtful response. I understand that Wikispecies will
> respond to the needs of those actively creating it, rather than, say, those
> who are interested in text mining the results. My own interest is in using
> Wikispecies is the following:
>
> 1. As a source of references to locate in BHL and add to BioStor
> 2. Locating DOIs for reference that have them but Wikispecies is unaware
> of this
> 3. Using Wikispecies and Wikidata to link articles in BioStor (and
> elsewhere) to articles about authors, see http://iphylo.blogspot.co.
> uk/2017/01/the-biodiversity-heritage-library-meets.html
>
> It would be nice to be able to feed the links to BioStor, BHL, and DOIs
> back to Wikispecies as well. At the moment the biggest obstacle I face is
> writing code to parse all the different ways contributors use to write
> references (and reference templates) in Wikispecies. But I realise this use
> case is not necessarily high on the agenda of Wikispecies contributors.
>
> Regards,
>
> Rod
>
> On 17 Mar 2017, at 21:21, Scott Thomson <scott.thomson321 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> The issue of referencing has been discussed on Wikispecies, numerous
> times. Most recently it was brought up by Andy who was keen for us to use
> the Wikipedia {{cite journal}} template from there. First up it does not
> have community support and as such I have to run with the consensus, I am a
> bureaucrat there but its a vote system. I am no fan of the Wikipedia
> template as it stands. However I acknowledge it could be modified to be
> better. The Wikipedia template is good for articles that have a doi, but if
> they do not its more trouble than its worth. I get it that it is difficult
> to extract a string, which is effectively what Wikispecies refs are. I
> would be happy to see a proposal that was an improvement, but the current
> WP cite journal template is not it. There is a lot of resistance to
> changing it, largely because the issue has been raised a number of times
> and the current standard got community support. In wikimedia that is how it
> is done. Another difficulty is the formatting, the botanists wants refs the
> way they are used to, the zoologists want it their way. What we ended up
> with is a compromise. They do the refs as templates for the most part,
> partly to save rewriting them over and over again. It is what they are used
> to.
>
> The way to change this is to get more people involved in the project. In
> particular taxonomists. Since we specialise in the type of data presented
> there. If enough genuine editors (those who edit frequently) who specialise
> in main space editing, ie creating taxon accounts, want a change in the
> referencing system it will happen. With Wikimedia if you want to effect any
> changes you have to be part of it.
>
> Cheers, Scott
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Roderic Page <Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Andy,
>>
>> Thanks for the info. It’s nice to see the links to Wikidata, and the
>> author identifiers (VIAF, ORCID, ISNI, etc.).
>>
>> One thing about Wikispecies which drives me a little nuts is the lack of
>> standardised way to write references (compared, say, too the templates used
>> in Wikipedia). Given all the interest in extracting citations from
>> Wikipedia, is Wikispecies lily to adopt a similar template for citations,
>> or is that wishful thinking?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Rod
>>
>> On 16 Mar 2017, at 09:13, Andy Mabbett <andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk<mailto:
>> andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk>> wrote:
>>
>> If you have named a taxon, then it is likely that there is (or will
>> be) a Wikispecies page about you, and other pages about your published
>> papers.
>>
>> Wikispecies now has a page for people to whom this applies:
>>
>>    https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikispecies:Autobiography
>>
>> Please feel free to forward this email to colleagues, or to mention
>> the page in your journals, other forums, etc.
>>
>> --
>> Andy Mabbett
>> @pigsonthewing
>> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>> _______________________________________________
>> Taxacom Mailing List
>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
>> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>>
>>
>> Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Years, 1987-2017.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>> Roderic Page
>> Professor of Taxonomy
>> Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine
>> College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences
>> Graham Kerr Building
>> University of Glasgow
>> Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK
>>
>> Email:  Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk<mailto:Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk>
>> Tel:  +44 141 330 4778
>> Skype:  rdmpage
>> Facebook:  http://www.facebook.com/rdmpage
>> LinkedIn:  http://uk.linkedin.com/in/rdmpage
>> Twitter:  http://twitter.com/rdmpage
>> Blog:  http://iphylo.blogspot.com
>> ORCID:  http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7101-9767
>> Citations:  http://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?hl=en&user=4Z5WABAAAAAJ
>> ResearchGate https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Roderic_Page
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Taxacom Mailing List
>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
>> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>>
>>
>> Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Years, 1987-2017.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Scott Thomson
> Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de São Paulo
> Divisão de Vertebrados (Herpetologia)
> Avenida Nazaré, 481, Ipiranga
> 04263-000, São Paulo, SP, Brasil
> http://www.carettochelys.com
> ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1279-2722
> Lattes: *http://lattes.cnpq.br/0323517916624728*
> <https://wwws.cnpq.br/cvlattesweb/PKG_MENU.menu?f_cod=1E409F4BF37BFC4AD13FD58CDB7AA5FD#>
> Skype: Faendalimas
> Skype Number: +55 (11) 3280 0144 <+55%2011%203280-0144>
> Mobile Phone: +55 11 974 74 9095
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Roderic Page
> Professor of Taxonomy
> Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine
> College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences
> Graham Kerr Building
> University of Glasgow
> Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK
>
> Email:  Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk
> Tel:  +44 141 330 4778 <+44%20141%20330%204778>
> Skype:  rdmpage
> Facebook:  http://www.facebook.com/rdmpage
> LinkedIn:  http://uk.linkedin.com/in/rdmpage
> Twitter:  http://twitter.com/rdmpage
> Blog:  http://iphylo.blogspot.com
> ORCID:  http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7101-9767
> Citations:  http://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?hl=en&user=4Z5WABAAAAAJ
> ResearchGate https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Roderic_Page
>
>
>

-- 
Scott Thomson
Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de São Paulo
Divisão de Vertebrados (Herpetologia)
Avenida Nazaré, 481, Ipiranga
04263-000, São Paulo, SP, Brasil
http://www.carettochelys.com
ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1279-2722
Lattes: *http://lattes.cnpq.br/0323517916624728*
<https://wwws.cnpq.br/cvlattesweb/PKG_MENU.menu?f_cod=1E409F4BF37BFC4AD13FD58CDB7AA5FD#>
Skype: Faendalimas
Skype Number: +55 (11) 3280 0144
Mobile Phone: +55 11 974 74 9095