[Taxacom] Wikipedia vs. science [some wider issues]

Mon May 14 22:56:18 CDT 2012

just to clarify, I was not implying that every scientist involved in online databasing does so purely for reasons of funding, just that, realistically, and in general, this is probably the single most important factor ...

I would be interested though, in?a point or two of clarification, of what you, Jack, have just said, namely, who is your silo for? And do you stand by it as a reliable source in itself, or would you urge users to "check for themselves"? In other words, what sort of disclaimer have you (I haven't looked), or would you like to add to your silo? Are you happy for aggregators harvesting it to claim that it is a reliable source, because they select only the most reliable sources available?
?
Stephen

________________________________
From: John Longino <jacklongino at gmail.com>
To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> 
Cc: Jim Croft <jim.croft at gmail.com>; "mivie at montana.edu" <mivie at montana.edu>; "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>; "tony.rees at csiro.au" <tony.rees at csiro.au> 
Sent: Tuesday, 15 May 2012 3:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Wikipedia vs. science [some wider issues]

As a counter to Stephen, I contribute to and correct an on-line database not because of funding but because it is a terrific way to manage and insure longevity of my own data, and to combine resources with a defined group of collaborators whom I trust. I contribute to AntWeb and AntCat, hosted by Cal Academy. These two resources are just for ants, with up-to-date image and specimen data, and a current taxonomic catalogue. 

Basically what I describe is a silo, and I think silos are GREAT. "Silo" has become a negative buzzword at NSF, for reasons that elude me. Silos are groups of collaborators that are enthusiastic about a taxon and are willing to add content and quality control to a jointly held resource. If there were lots of high-quality silos, then the aggregators would have a higher-quality product as well.?

I agree that too much funding goes to the aggregators ("let's build a really elegant and sophisticated cart. We'll get some horses later."). But if I were given the choice between funding a lone taxonomist or a group of taxonomists contributing to on-line resources (identification guides, image and specimen databases), I would choose the latter.

Jack

On May 14, 2012, at 7:29 PM, Stephen Thorpe wrote:

The good Doug Yanega, in his attempts to reason with the immoveable mountain currently lodged at Wikipedia, argued, I suggest, something along these lines: 
>?
>scientists don't consider online databases to be reliable sources, and will never bother to publish corrections to the inevitable mistakes that such databases contain
>?
>I do not dispute this, it is spot on, but it does rather raise some wider issues:
>?
>So, why do scientists create and maintain online databases (e.g. WoRMS, etc.)? Who are they for? Other scientists, or general public? What do other scientists use them for (particularly since they seem not to consider them to be reliable sources)? How should others, like Wikipedia, use these online databases appropriately?
>?
>My initial, and someone bluntly suggested answers are as follows: Scientists create and maintain online databases primarily because they can get funding to do so. I do not know if?such databases are used much by the scientific community for anything (except perhaps unfortunate guesstimations of global biodiversity!), but, if they are, then scientists?are at least better placed to?notice and ignore errors than the general public are. Perhaps, some such databases need to be reminded that they have a duty to take care and try to make the data as accurate and error free as they possibly can, since others may be relying on it for various purposes?
>?
>Just a thought, but it could perhaps make for a useful publication if some of us got together and wrote a formal paper outlining how general purpose users, like Wikipedia, of such online taxonomic databases should use such databases, i.e. detail what sort of information/reliability such databases are offering, and what is unrealistic to expect from them. This would include such guidelines as this: 
>?
>the database itself should not be considered to be a reliable source, but merely a pointer to reliable sources. The onus is on the user to verify the offered information against the primary sources. All data offered by the database is, trivially, verifiable against the database itself, but this means little or nothing since the database itself doesn't claim to be a reliable source.
>?
>Unfortunately, however, I cannot see too many online biodiversity databases being so?modest about what they realistically can or cannot offer. Ironically, it is the bigger aggregators of individual databses that tend to be the ones promising the most, even when many of?their source databases might be more inclined towards modesty ...
>?
>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
>_______________________________________________
>
>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
>

************************************************
John T. (Jack) Longino
Professor, Department of Biology
257 S 1400 E, University of Utah
Salt Lake City, UT 84112

Longino Ant Lab at?https://sites.google.com/site/longinoantlab/

Project LLAMA at https://sites.google.com/site/longinollama/

Ants of Costa Rica on the Web at?https://sites.google.com/site/longinoantlab/ants-of-costa-rica