[Taxacom] Wikipedia vs. science

[Stephen Thorpe]

The problem with Wikipedia is that it wasn't taylor made for science, but for more popular stuff [=everything else??]
?
Wikispecies, while still an imperfect entity, was at least designed with science in mind
?
I think Jim has got it slightly wrong about WP, the bigger problem by far is NOR, not notability. If they so desire, established wikipedians can stretch NOR beyond pedantry into a whole new world of enforced control over new editors ...
?
It is no exaggeration to claim that if they want to, they can enforce this as being against "synthesis" (a subpolicy of NOR):
?
I can source A with a reliable source
?
I can source B with a reliable source
?
I still cannot state the conjunction (A and B) unless I have a further reliable source explicitly stating that conjunction!
?
It is true!!
?
Stephen


________________________________
From: Jim Croft <jim.croft at gmail.com>
To: mivie at montana.edu 
Cc: tony.rees at csiro.au; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu 
Sent: Tuesday, 15 May 2012 11:21 AM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Wikipedia vs. science

There are an number of isssues with the Wikipedia philosophy that have
deterred me from contributing, although I use it all the time as a
reasonhable starting point for almost anything.

'No Original Research' is not one of these show stoppers - our own
data compilations such as APNI and APC work the same way, in that you
don't just make stuff up, you reference it and link it. If you want to
make stuff up elsewhere and reference it - that's fine, that's how
science works... (in spite of what Stephen quoted from the WP editor
earlier, I am pretty sure that Wikipedia does not require sources to
be in refereed works, but I may be wrong).

The big sticking point is that of 'notability'. Who decides? In
biology, and taxonomy in particular, every fact, no matter how
trivial, no matter which idiot published it, is notable and has to be
accounted for. I have a big problem with a clique of self appointed
editor, perhaps not even working in the field, deciding what's in and
whats out, both in topic and in detail. Deletionism is what kills
Wikipedia for me...

jim

On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 7:24 AM, Michael A. Ivie <mivie at montana.edu> wrote:
> Now we are ?up to actual Scriptures? Well, then you should understand
> Attention to Wikipedia = Pearls before swine! Just don't do it.
>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> 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
>>
>
>
> --
> Michael A. Ivie, Ph.D., F.R.E.S.
> Montana Entomology Collection
> Marsh Labs, Room 50
> NW corner of Lincoln and S.19th
> Montana State University
> Bozeman, MT 59717-3020
> USA
>
> (406) 994-4610?(voice)
> (406) 994-6029?(FAX)
> mivie at montana.edu
>
>



-- 
_________________
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

_______________________________________________

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