[Taxacom] WoRMS: when biodiversity databases go wrong

[Stephen Thorpe]

>but in my experience databases, including my own personal ones, are always wrong 
>somewhere
yes, indeed, why even Wikispecies is (currently) b0ll0cks in places ... though 
we do not really know at present the full extent of the problems (in any 
database) ...

the aim of my post on this was twofold:

(1) primary aim: to get the relevant page on WoRMS fixed up, as it would REALLY 
annoy me if a user chose to believe it over Wikispecies; and

(2) secondary aim: to highlight in general terms what you basically just said 
about the inherent imperfection of ALL such databases, because I get the strong 
impression (as I have said before) that there are many users out there who think 
(and in SOME cases are led to believe) that the reliability of many of these 
databases is much higher than it actually is, and if the database doesn't 
provide the user with a way to check for themselves, then who is to know?

Stephen



________________________________
From: Geoffrey Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz>
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Sat, 28 August, 2010 5:48:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] WoRMS: when biodiversity databases go wrong

Hi Stephen,

Love the subject header - but in my experience databases, including my own
personal ones, are always wrong somewhere. An enormous task like an
inventory of all marine species taxonomy & synonymy is going to take years
before it gets near the perfection you and I would like it to have right
now.

The quality control in WoRMS comes partly from users who rely upon its
information and need to use it elsewhere, such as yourself, being able to
contact directly the section editor responsible, as you've just done, when
there is an issue. Anyone can also contact the database management team
who will also take prompt action if possible. I'm expecting that the new
Amphipoda taxa entries which are concerning you will be improved very
shortly, with or without almost daily bulletins on progress to all Taxacom
readers. Note that all the many taxonomic editors in WoRMS (I am one) are
unpaid volunteers, mostly with full-time jobs doing other stuff. 
Personally I think it's fantastic that WoRMS allows you to go directly to
someone authoritative on the group and with edit access. All databases
should be so open to improvement.

Geoff


>>> On 28/08/2010 at 1:15 p.m., Stephen Thorpe
<stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:

> As an example of how things can go wrong with biodiversity databases which
> tout
> themselves as reliable by virtue of authority of contributors, I would
> once
> again like to spotlight Kerguelenia on WoRMS (a generally very reliable
> database
> on the whole). You may recall that about a week ago I pointed out that the
> relevant primary taxonomist (Jim Lowry, who I do not know, and have no
> reason to
> think is unrepresentative of competent taxonomists in general) had added
> names
> from a publication of his, shortly before it was published and there were
> some
> discrepancies with the published version. Since that post of mine, he has
> modified the page, but it is still wrong! I have detailed the problems
> here
> (http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Kerguelenia) in a NOTE under the WoRMS
> link.
> This annoys me somewhat, because users are more likely to believe the
> incorrect
> WoRMS version than they are to believe my correct Wikispecies version,
> since the
> former was written by the experts! I don't know what the problem is here,
> but
> perhaps taxonomists are not the best people to index their own work on
> biodiversity databases? Perhaps they are just too busy to give it due care
> and
> attention? Where is the quality control?
> Stephen



_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these 
methods:

(1) http://taxacom.markmail.org

Or (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  
your search terms here