[Taxacom] Wikispecies as an open alternative to Catalogue of Life

[Stephen Thorpe]

>Is this a general principle of Wikispecies, or only your personal?philosophy?
?
Officially only?my personal?philosophy, but it is hard to see how Wikispecies can avoid it, given the way it is structured ...
?
>It also necessarily involves a *lot* of original research, ...
?
again, although officially OR is not encouraged on Wikispecies, how can it be avoided when we have to stitch together info from?numerous different (and sometimes?partly or wholly inconsistent)? sources and shoe-horn them all into a single classification?
?
>I'm not saying that any of this is bad, but?it's a really different goal from having a literature repository
?
yes, but I didn't say that the only goal was to be a literature repository! The goal is to be a taxonomically structured and integrated?bibliography of life (with links to the literature wherever possible) ...
?
Stephen
?

________________________________
From: Curtis Clark <lists at curtisclark.org>
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu 
Sent: Friday, 16 December 2011 4:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Wikispecies as an open alternative to Catalogue of Life

On 12/15/2011 11:50 AM, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> My approach is to strive to create a single classification that reflects current phylogenetic thinking as much as possible - a sort of middle ground pragmatic approach which admits that phylogeny is forever inconclusive, while at the same time not reverting to an extreme "classification is merely a filing cabinet" philosophy.

Is this a general principle of Wikispecies, or only your personal 
philosophy? I see it as somewhat of a deal-breaker. The most pragmatic 
approach balances stability and currency, but that makes the 
organization of what might otherwise be a good resource a moving target.

It also necessarily involves a *lot* of original research, perhaps not 
in the taxa you frequent, but certainly system-wide, since a lot of 
"current phylogenetic thinking" in specific groups has to be stitched 
together to make a global classification (not even to mention the 
decision for many species, genera, and families, whether to treat them 
under the ICZN or the ICN). I'm not saying that any of this is bad, but 
it's a really different goal from having a literature repository.

-- 
Curtis Clark? ? ? ? http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark
After 2012-01-02:
Biological Sciences? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? +1 909 869 4140
Cal Poly Pomona, Pomona CA 91768


_______________________________________________

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) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org

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