Search the Taxacom archive · Browse by month · Mirror of the former lists.ku.edu archive (1992–2025)

[Taxacom] Chameleons, GBIF, and the Red List

Roderic Page Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk
Mon Aug 25 23:28:02 CDT 2014 

Hi Stephen,

Yes, evidence matters. But when it comes to reconciling conflicting evidence, or deciding whether to accept evidence, the past performance of the source may be a useful piece of information to take into account (the source could be an algorithm or database, as well as a person).

One approach is that every source starts from scratch with the same prior probability if being correct. This is how most online communities start. Or we could adjust that prior based on evidence of expertise (which might make participation by experts more attractive). Of course, the experts may turn out to be rubbish, in which case their scores would go down as evidence mounts that their expertise is over rated.

Regards

Rod

Sent from Acompli<http://t.acompli.com/ac_sig>




On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 5:51 PM -0700, "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz<mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>> wrote:

Verifiability should be the main criterion, not "reputation". An annotation should be backed up with evidence

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 26/8/14, Dean Pentcheff <pentcheff at gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Chameleons, GBIF, and the Red List
 To: "Roderic Page" <Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk>
 Cc: "Chuck Miller" <chuck.miller at mobot.org>, "TAXACOM" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, "Bob Mesibov" <mesibov at southcom.com.au>
 Received: Tuesday, 26 August, 2014, 12:31 PM

 Yes. At some level, we
 choose to adopt, examine, or reject proposed changes
 based on the proposer's reputation (whether
 the proposer is a person or an
 institution).
 If proposers are people, something like ORCID would be
 ideal.

 -Dean
 --
 Dean Pentcheff
 pentcheff at gmail.com
 dpentche at nhm.org


 On Mon, Aug
 25, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Roderic Page <Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk>
 wrote:

 >
 Dean,
 >
 >  Yes,
 that's an elegant way of putting it.
 >
 >  Imagine we also
 enable people to log in with, say, their ORCID
 >
 >  This means that
 they are identified in a way that can be linked to their
 > academic profile (why should I trust your
 input - oh, I see from your
 > profile on
 http://orcid.org that you've
 published 10 papers on this
 > taxon, OK,
 you clearly know what you're talking...). It also gives
 us a way
 > to give credit by adding these
 annotations to that ORCID profile (in the
 > same way that papers, datasets, and
 individual figures are being added).
 >
 >  Regards
 >
 >  Rod
 >
 > Sent from Acompli <http://t.acompli.com/ac_sig>
 >
 >
 _____________________________
 > From:
 Dean Pentcheff <pentcheff at gmail.com>
 > Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 23:28
 >
 > Subject: Re:
 [Taxacom] Chameleons, GBIF, and the Red List
 > To: TAXACOM <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 > Cc: Roderic Page <roderic.page at glasgow.ac.uk>,
 Bob Mesibov <
 > mesibov at southcom.com.au>,
 Chuck Miller <chuck.miller at mobot.org>
 >
 >
 >
 > Non-automated social
 input to Rod Page's suggestion: +1.
 >
 >  I _very_ much like
 the structure of this. At one swipe it takes care of
 > a lot of the problems of migrating a
 "comment" into "data", primarily by
 > removing the difference.
 >
 >  The assumption of
 the "comment on data" model is that data fields
 have
 > particular properties (numeric,
 free text, restricted vocabulary,
 >
 restricted numeric [e.g. lat/long], etc.), whereas comments
 are assumed to
 > be free text.
 >
 >  Rod's model (if
 I'm representing his proposal accurately) brings all
 the
 > "type" information of a
 field to what we are calling a comment on a field.
 > If you "comment" on a latitude,
 you have to put your comment in as a number
 > between -90 and +90. It's a datum in
 the correct format.
 >
 >  As part of the annotation system, one
 also assumes that any "comment"
 > will also have accompanying metadata (who
 made the comment, and quite
 > likely a
 free text field for the justification).
 >
 >  The key thing here
 is that it drastically reduces the difficulty of
 > using data from incoming comments by
 changing the job from
 >
 selection+interpretation+input to selection.
 >
 > -Dean
 > --
 > Dean Pentcheff
 > pentcheff at gmail.com
 > dpentche at nhm.org
 >
 >
 >
 On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Roderic Page <Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk
 > > wrote:
 >
 >> Hi Chuck,
 >>
 >> So was I  sorry if I was being
 obscure.
 >>
 >>
 My take on the TripAdvisor model is that it is like this:
 >>
 >> [Source]
 >>    |
 >>
 +— comment1 “Now in different genus"
 >>    |
 >>
 +— comment2 “Maybe they meant Africa?"
 >>
 >> The comments
 can have social scores, badges, etc. Useful, but not
 really
 >> what I’m after. How do we
 get information from the comments? How do we move
 >> information from comments to the
 source? What if the source has
 >>
 insufficient resources to respond? We are left with source
 data that is
 >> being displayed,
 despite (say) comments saying “this data is wrong”.
 >>
 >> The “social
 data” model differs in that it doesn’t privilege any
 one
 >> particular source of
 information (so it’s not like the “sticky notes”
 >> TripAdvisor model), nor does it insist
 on one summary view (like a Wiki
 >>
 where the latest edit wins). Instead, everyone gets to write
 to the
 >> database, and nobody can
 overwrite what someone else writes. So the
 >> “primary source” isn’t
 privileged, but at the same time its data can’t be
 >> overwritten.
 >>
 >> What I have
 in mind is something like this:
 >>
 >> [ … ]
 >>
 +— source
 >>    |
 >>    +— comment1
 >>    |
 >>
 +— comment2
 >>
 >> The source is one of a number of
 “comments”, and the comments are not
 >> simply bits of text but actual data,
 e.g.
 >>
 >> [ …
 ]
 >>    +— "Mt.
 Brandenberg” [source]
 >>    |
 >>    +— lat -21.1, long 14.35
 [GEOLocate]
 >>    |
 >>    +— "Mt. Brandenberg,
 Namibia” [Chuck Miller]
 >>
 >> Then we can do a bunch of things. We
 might just accept the primary
 >>
 source, or we might defer to your annotation, or we might
 synthesise them
 >> together a present
 a (hopefully) enhanced view of the data.
 >>
 >> The switch in
 perspective is from “I am the authority for this record
 and
 >> you may comment on it” to
 “together we will build the record”.
 >>
 >> Regards
 >>
 >> Rod
 >>
 >>
 ---------------------------------------------------------
 >> Roderic Page
 >>
 Professor of Taxonomy
 >> Institute of
 Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine
 >> College of Medical, Veterinary and
 Life Sciences
 >> Graham Kerr
 Building
 >> University of Glasgow
 >> Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK
 >>
 >> Email:  Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk<mailto:
 Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk>
 >> Tel:  +44 141 330 4778
 <+44%20141%20330%204778>
 >> Skype:
 rdmpage
 >> Facebook:  http://www.facebook.com/rdmpage
 >> LinkedIn:  http://uk.linkedin.com/in/rdmpage
 >> Twitter:  http://twitter.com/rdmpage
 >> Blog:  http://iphylo.blogspot.com
 >> ORCID:  http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7101-9767
 >> Citations:  http://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?hl=en&user=4Z5WABAAAAAJ
 >>
 >>
 >> On 25 Aug 2014, at 19:09, Chuck Miller
 < Chuck.Miller at mobot.org<mailto:
 >> Chuck.Miller at mobot.org>>
 wrote:
 >>
 >>
 Rod,
 >> I was referring more to the
 commenting & rating aspects of Yelp &
 >> TripAdvisor when you mentioned a
 "social" approach.
 >>
 >> In TripAdvisor, each commenter makes a
 rating of a record (a hotel or
 >>
 restaurant in this case), then the individual ratings are
 summarized into
 >> summary scores.
 The comments are displayed together, both positive and
 >> negative, for a record.  The
 commenters get "badges" but only for the
 >> quantity of their posts.  But, there
 are also "votes" on the comments by
 >> the users of the data if a comment is
 considered "helpful".  The records
 >> are ranked #1 to #Last based on the
 ratings. And finally there can be a
 >>
 response by the "owner" of the record.
 >>
 >> All of it
 adds up to "social annotation" - a collective
 think without
 >> rigor or
 standardization.  And for hotels and restaurants, it's
 very
 >> helpful.  Would it be as
 helpful for biodiversity data records?
 >>
 >> Chuck
 >>
 >>
 >>
 _______________________________________________
 >> Taxacom Mailing List
 >> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 >> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 >> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may
 be searched at:
 >> http://taxacom.markmail.org
 >>
 >> Celebrating
 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
 >>
 >
 >
 >
 >  Non-automated
 social input to Rod Page's suggestion: +1.
 >
 >  I _very_ much like
 the structure of this. At one swipe it takes care of
 > a lot of the problems of migrating a
 "comment" into "data", primarily by
 > removing the difference.
 >
 >  The assumption of
 the "comment on data" model is that data fields
 have
 > particular properties (numeric,
 free text, restricted vocabulary,
 >
 restricted numeric [e.g. lat/long], etc.), whereas comments
 are assumed to
 > be free text.
 >
 >  Rod's model (if
 I'm representing his proposal accurately) brings all
 the
 > "type" information of a
 field to what we are calling a comment on a field.
 > If you "comment" on a latitude,
 you have to put your comment in as a number
 > between -90 and +90. It's a datum in
 the correct format.
 >
 >  As part of the annotation system, one
 also assumes that any "comment"
 > will also have accompanying metadata (who
 made the comment, and quite
 > likely a
 free text field for the justification).
 >
 >  The key thing here
 is that it drastically reduces the difficulty of
 > using data from incoming comments by
 changing the job from
 >
 selection+interpretation+input to selection.
 >
 > -Dean
 > --
 > Dean Pentcheff
 > pentcheff at gmail.com
 > dpentche at nhm.org
 >
 >
 >
 On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Roderic Page <Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk
 > > wrote:
 >
 >> Hi Chuck,
 >>
 >> So was I  sorry if I was being
 obscure.
 >>
 >>
 My take on the TripAdvisor model is that it is like this:
 >>
 >> [Source]
 >>    |
 >>
 +— comment1 “Now in different genus"
 >>    |
 >>
 +— comment2 “Maybe they meant Africa?"
 >>
 >> The comments
 can have social scores, badges, etc. Useful, but not
 really
 >> what I’m after. How do we
 get information from the comments? How do we move
 >> information from comments to the
 source? What if the source has
 >>
 insufficient resources to respond? We are left with source
 data that is
 >> being displayed,
 despite (say) comments saying “this data is wrong”.
 >>
 >> The “social
 data” model differs in that it doesn’t privilege any
 one
 >> particular source of
 information (so it’s not like the “sticky notes”
 >> TripAdvisor model), nor does it insist
 on one summary view (like a Wiki
 >>
 where the latest edit wins). Instead, everyone gets to write
 to the
 >> database, and nobody can
 overwrite what someone else writes. So the
 >> “primary source” isn’t
 privileged, but at the same time its data can’t be
 >> overwritten.
 >>
 >> What I have
 in mind is something like this:
 >>
 >> [ … ]
 >>
 +— source
 >>    |
 >>    +— comment1
 >>    |
 >>
 +— comment2
 >>
 >> The source is one of a number of
 “comments”, and the comments are not
 >> simply bits of text but actual data,
 e.g.
 >>
 >> [ …
 ]
 >>    +— "Mt.
 Brandenberg” [source]
 >>    |
 >>    +— lat -21.1, long 14.35
 [GEOLocate]
 >>    |
 >>    +— "Mt. Brandenberg,
 Namibia” [Chuck Miller]
 >>
 >> Then we can do a bunch of things. We
 might just accept the primary
 >>
 source, or we might defer to your annotation, or we might
 synthesise them
 >> together a present
 a (hopefully) enhanced view of the data.
 >>
 >> The switch in
 perspective is from “I am the authority for this record
 and
 >> you may comment on it” to
 “together we will build the record”.
 >>
 >> Regards
 >>
 >> Rod
 >>
 >>
 ---------------------------------------------------------
 >> Roderic Page
 >>
 Professor of Taxonomy
 >> Institute of
 Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine
 >> College of Medical, Veterinary and
 Life Sciences
 >> Graham Kerr
 Building
 >> University of Glasgow
 >> Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK
 >>
 >> Email:  Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk<mailto:Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk>
 >> Tel:  +44 141 330 4778
 >> Skype:  rdmpage
 >> Facebook:  http://www.facebook.com/rdmpage
 >> LinkedIn:  http://uk.linkedin.com/in/rdmpage
 >> Twitter:  http://twitter.com/rdmpage
 >> Blog:  http://iphylo.blogspot.com
 >> ORCID:  http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7101-9767
 >> Citations:  http://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?hl=en&user=4Z5WABAAAAAJ
 >>
 >>
 >> On 25 Aug 2014, at 19:09, Chuck Miller
 <Chuck.Miller at mobot.org<mailto:
 >> Chuck.Miller at mobot.org>>
 wrote:
 >>
 >>
 Rod,
 >> I was referring more to the
 commenting & rating aspects of Yelp &
 >> TripAdvisor when you mentioned a
 "social" approach.
 >>
 >> In TripAdvisor, each commenter makes a
 rating of a record (a hotel or
 >>
 restaurant in this case), then the individual ratings are
 summarized into
 >> summary scores.
 The comments are displayed together, both positive and
 >> negative, for a record.  The
 commenters get "badges" but only for the
 >> quantity of their posts.  But, there
 are also "votes" on the comments by
 >> the users of the data if a comment is
 considered "helpful".  The records
 >> are ranked #1 to #Last based on the
 ratings. And finally there can be a
 >>
 response by the "owner" of the record.
 >>
 >> All of it
 adds up to "social annotation" - a collective
 think without
 >> rigor or
 standardization.  And for hotels and restaurants, it's
 very
 >> helpful.  Would it be as
 helpful for biodiversity data records?
 >>
 >> Chuck
 >>
 >>
 >>
 _______________________________________________
 >> Taxacom Mailing List
 >> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 >> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 >> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may
 be searched at:
 >> http://taxacom.markmail.org
 >>
 >> Celebrating
 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
 >>
 >
 >
 _______________________________________________
 Taxacom Mailing List
 Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
 searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org

 Celebrating 27 years of
 Taxacom in 2014.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list