[Taxacom] Wikipedia vs. science

[Kim van der Linde]

If WoRMS contains a unique taxonomic arrangement, it is a primary source
and hence has to yield to secondary and tertiary sources. Problem solved.

Kim

On 5/13/2012 5:48 PM, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> Well, it had to happen sooner or later. Talking *Wikipedia* here, not
> *Wikispecies*. I have been blocked indefinitely from WP by an admin
> who wrote on my talk page [quote]This is a private website, and there
> are no "freedoms" nor "rights"[unquote] ... wow! A candid comment
> from another WP admin that I know: [quote]The community has become
> quite toxic and a lot of editors display self entitlement, which
> chased off a lot of new editors[unquote]
>
> All because of some sloppy (but under normal circumstances very
> minor) editing of a page on WoRMS, which an idiotic WP editor insists
> on neverthless using as a source for a WP article on the relevant
> taxon, even though he admits that it was adding nothing but
> misinformation to what he already had from other sources! The WoRMS
> page listed a couple of species epithets as genera, and cited a
> nonexistent publication as the source for these names (or, more
> precisely, the publication does exist, but in a completely different
> journal to the cited journal!) At first I tried to tag the errors on
> the WP article as unreliable (or even just possibly unreliable)
> information, but was told that to do this was "Original Research",
> and therefore not allowed. This, I could just about accept, barely,
> but surely then the sensible thing to do is just to drop WoRMS as a
> source for this particular WP article? If you don't mention it, then
> it isn't a problem! But, no, for some unknown reason, that WP editor
> seems to "own" that article, demands to persist with WoRMS as the
> source, and admins are protecting him ...
>
> The WP editor has written that the *only* thing that he will accept
> as sufficient reason to rebuke the WoRMS page is an explicit
> published statement in a peer reviewed journal to the effect that the
> relevant names on the current WoRMS page are a mistake! Sounds a bit
> "hopeful", doesn't it???
>
> On another article by the same WP editor, on a species of Diptera
> found only in Australia, he has dragged out an archived version of a
> N.Z. Diptera web checklist which has now been taken down because it
> was not considered to be reliable enough. It lists the fly from N.Z.,
> based, it turns out, on a misidentification. The WP editor
> nonetheless insists on using this archived checklist as a source for
> the presence of the fly in N.Z. ... wtf???
>
> 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) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> (2) a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>

-- 
http://www.kimvdlinde.com