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

[Stephen Thorpe]

As an aside, please note the way that Wikipedia works, with these latest (partly hidden in private email) developments: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ZooPro#Message_for_you
?
The person who is plotting against me here (by emailing WP people like whoever "ZooPro" might be)?is Scott Thomson, who, you may recall, was the person who?named a turtle genus Myuchelys, after Richard Wells had already long ago named it Wollumbinia ... admittedly providing a much better description, but it had already been named ...
?
where have professional ethics gone in science today, I ask you all???
?
Stephen

From: Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
To: 'Stephen Thorpe' <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>; 'John Longino' <jacklongino at gmail.com>; 'Roderic Page' <r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk> 
Cc: 'taxacom' <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> 
Sent: Wednesday, 16 May 2012 7:09 PM
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Wikipedia vs. science [some wider issues]

> because ants are a relatively small and well curated taxon now in a way
that
> cannot be said of moths, weevils, flies, or the entirely of marine life
...

...except fishes...which also have excellent online databases (Catalog of
Fishes; Fishbase) that are used routinely by scientists, young students,
regular folk, government agencies, etc., etc....



This message is only intended for the addressee named above.? Its contents may be privileged or otherwise protected.? Any unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this message or its contents is prohibited.? If you have received this message by mistake, please notify us immediately by reply mail or by collect telephone call.? Any personal opinions expressed in this message do not necessarily represent the views of the Bishop Museum.