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

[Stephen Thorpe]

wow, Jim, calm down man, you'll give yourself a Connery!! :)
?
you have added another dimension to the discussion, so to aggregate (oops!) the elements so far:
?
taxonomists, either individually or in groups,?sometimes create silos of information, sometimes for money, sometimes for their own purposes, and these silos are made available to g.p. as part of the deal 
?
then, two things tend to happen, 
?
(1) aggregators (a form of large primitive semiaquatic reptile!) grab silos and promote themselves as having the most reliable sources available, possibly resulting in more money and less work for them, but less money and more work for the silo creators. They also tend to use out of date harvestings from the silos and mix it up with a bunch of other, possibly less reliable sources. Let me say here that LepIndex and WTaxa are at present ABSOLUTELY UNSUITABLE as data sources for aggregators, and I know that GBIF execs., for example,?are well aware of this fact, but continue to use them anyway, for lack of alternatives. I do not criticise LepIndex or WTaxa on any other grounds, merely that they are currently unsuitable as data sources for the usual aggregators. Used for different purposes they may be very useful silos.
?
(2) Wiki sites (perhaps a?species of aggregator, but with very different economics) tend to use silos (and aggregators)?as "reliable sources" for their activities. This may have some unintended consequences, particularly when the data in a particular case isn't really up to scratch at present. Wikipedia in particular has policies in place which tend to amplify any problems in the source data, because one must be uncritical of the data, for fear of committing the sins of NPOV and OR, and yet there is implicit endorsement of any source that a WP chooses to use for an article. THis was one point that Stemonitis failed to grasp. At one stage he claimed that he was just reporting what WoRMS were then claiming about Munididae, and not making any claims or judgements of his own (which would be OR). But since there was no necessity to use WoRMS as a source for this article, the fact that he chose to do so without comment is an implicit endorsement of the
 source data, for why would he choose a source which he knew to be incorrect??
?
What's the solution to all this? I don't know ...
?
Stephen

From: Jim Croft <jim.croft at gmail.com>
To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> 
Cc: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> 
Sent: Tuesday, 15 May 2012 5:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Wikipedia vs. science [some wider issues]

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