[Taxacom] Wikipedia vs. science

[Jim Croft]

yes, in this case, WoRMS is serving as a data source, aggregated by
the likes of Wikipedia...

jim

On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 7:15 AM, Geoff Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> Except that WoRMS ?is not a data aggregator such as that. It is mostly
> editor driven and it is quite easy to ask for corrections in WoRMS.
>
> Geoff
>
> On Mon, May 14, 2012 11:33 pm, Jim Croft wrote:
>> Tony, Tony... You clearly do not understand the process of data
>> aggregation. Data is never corrected at source. It is corrected
>> immediately upon aggregation (and never touched again if it can be
>> avoided) and then bragged about relentlessly by the aggregators at
>> every opportunity, saying how much bigger and better their data is
>> than anybody elses'. If at all possible, this is done while
>> simultaneously berating data providers about how individually
>> incomplete their data is and for not keeping their data up to date.
>>
>> The Chronicles describe this is how The Ancients did it, and
>> predict... well, so far they are right on the money... ;)
>>
>> jim
>>
>> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 8:45 PM, ?<Tony.Rees at csiro.au> wrote:
>>> Stephen, again pardon me if you have suggested this already, but how
>>> about aking the WoRMS editor/s to correct the mistake at source? That is
>>> what I normally do in such cases. Then if it is corrected relatively
>>> promptly, you can simply cite the corrected version... In any case, it
>>> is presumably better for all concerned if WoRMS is correct and not
>>> erroneous.
>
>
>



-- 
_________________
Jim Croft ~ jim.croft at gmail.com ~ +61-2-62509499 ~ http://about.me/jrc
'Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to
pause and reflect.'
- Mark Twain
'A civilized society is one which tolerates eccentricity to the point
of doubtful sanity.'
?- Robert Frost

Please send URLs, not attachments:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html