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

[Jim Croft]

On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Stephen Thorpe
<stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
> 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 ...

This may be only partially right, and I would be interested to know,
on a global scale, how much.
In our case, attracting or attracted funding is definitely not the
driver. Our staff are employed to do 'the botany thing' and we have
decided that documenting our botanical knowledge asset is the
foundation of this, so we don't have to come back and do it again. If
you want to pay us do do more of it, or pay us to do it faster, that's
fine, but we are going to do it anyway, eventually. Because that is
what is required to 'do the botany thing'.

I would like to think that most herbaria and museums in Australia work
this way in our participation in the AVH, OZCAM and the ALA.

> 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?

In our case, our silo is primarily for us, to make sure we are 'doing
the botany thing' properly, defensibly and transparently. We do so we
can know stuff and answer questions. It just so happens that parts of
it are also useful to you and your mates, and their mates - and you
are welcome to it.

> 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?

It is a work in progress. Always. So caveat emptor. Always. If you
want to assume the data is always going to be 100% correct you are a
mug. Not our problem. Send us the evidence/reference that it is wrong
and we will correct as part of 'doing the botany thing'.

> Are you happy for
> aggregators harvesting it to claim that it is a reliable source, because
> they select only the most reliable sources available?

Aggregators gonna aggregate... not our problem...

What is a problem is when they say are using our data when what they
mean they are presenting an old/obsolete version of our data.

What is a problem is if the data is presented as being theirs without
appropriate acknowledgement of source, provenance and lineage.

What is a problem is if finely curated data is mixed uncritically with
crowd-sourced data and less well curated data with no means to readily
separate wheat from chaff.

What is a problem is if there is no transparent route from the
aggregation back to the sources to verify that what you see is what
you think you are getting.

What is a problem is if they get paid a bucket load of cash based on
our freely provided data and we do not get a cut of the action.

What is a problem is if they undermine our client and support base by
offering a 'better experience' and remove our ability to compile and
maintain the data essential for this better experience.

In short, data silos are the golden egglaying geese for aggregators.
With a bit of sensitivity and care this can continue. But the parable
warns otherwise.

jim
-- 
_________________
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