[Taxacom] IRMNG update

[Stephen Thorpe]

>Agreed, although "closed" sites are no different in that respect to opinions in self-published papers<

That is true, but how common are self-published papers these days? Not very! Hoser and who else?? Most of what is published goes through peer review, which is typically lacking on a "closed" website. Now, peer review is, of course, far from perfect, but imperfection is arguably preferable to absence! The worry with "closed" websites is that the biased data will be harvested by aggregators like GBIF etc. and actually used for "decision-making" (whatever that really amounts to?)

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 31/8/16, Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] IRMNG update
 To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 Cc: "taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, "John Grehan" <calabar.john at gmail.com>
 Received: Wednesday, 31 August, 2016, 9:17 AM
 
 Agreed, although
 "closed" sites are no different in that respect
 to
 opinions in self-published papers...
 
 Another issue I omitted with
 regard to privately supported operations
 is
 persistence of a different kind - how many such sites/pages
 from
 (e.g.) even 10 years ago are still
 there, and how many of today's
 sites
 will be still there in 10 years' time??
 
 Already in IRMNG (which has
 been only going 10 years) some significant
 sources I utilized - including the results of
 publicly funded research
 projects then
 disseminated via e.g. University department sites - have
 since disappeared. Future proofing is
 definitely an issue to consider
 (which in
 part also underpins the move of IRMNG from CSIRO, where I
 no
 longer am, to VLIZ).
 
 Regards- Tony
 
 -- 
 Tony Rees, New South Wales,
 Australia
 https://about.me/TonyRees