[Taxacom] wikipedia & taxonomical authority

Thompson, Chris Chris.Thompson at ARS.USDA.GOV
Wed Jul 30 08:12:23 CDT 2008


As for Roderic's comment:

Wikipedia: The taxonomic community seems  
somehow afraid of them, yet I suggest this is not based on much more  
than folklore.

Let me give a real example of this "folklore"

The wikipedia has an entry for "Hoverfly" [European common name for
family Syrphidae, Order Diptera; known in North America as flower flies]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melangyna_viridiceps

They include a picture of a species identified as "Melangyna
viridiceps," an endemic Australian species. Unfortunately, the picture
is of Simosyrphus grandicornis.  In the references, there is a link to
CSIRO photo gallery where there is a picture of the real Melangyna
viridiceps.
http://www.ento.csiro.au/aicn/name_c/a_980.htm

Now that the wikipedia has associated the scientific name of hoverfly
with Melangyna viridiceps, one can google that scientific name. And one
discovered there are numerous pictures now on the web identified as this
species. Google generates some 1,130 hits and we find

The species now "occurs" in Europe in Dave's Garden
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melangyna_viridiceps but is really Eupeodes
luniger

The species now "occurs" in New World, here is Toxomerus species 
http://flickr.com/photos/pyerotalone/2431464869/in/pool-idplease

And here is Syrphus sp. Listed as Melangyna viridiceps and a species of
Eristalis (but at least this has "I think" as a modifier)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/barnybug/page21/

Here is Scaeva pyrastri as Melangyna viridiceps
http://macromath.blogspot.com/2005/06/aposematic-fly.html

I could go on, and one afternoon I did. And about two-third of all the
unique images on the web as Melangyna viridiceps are mis-identification
simply because of an error in Wikipedia of associating that name with
the common name hoverfly.

That is REAL folklore, Rod.

Smile :)



F. Christian Thompson
Systematic Entomology Lab., ARS, USDA
c/o Smithsonian Institution MRC-0169
PO Box 37012
Washington, D. C. 20013-7012
(202) 382-1800 voice
(202) 786-9422 fax
www.diptera.org Diptera Website

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Roderic Page
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 4:58 AM
To: Taxacom
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] taxon wikipedia type resources

I'm sure Roger will have his own views but to my mind there is a world  
of difference between a mailing list, data integration, and a wiki.

A wiki is publicly visible, editable by anyone (in principle), and can  
display a complete history of edits. This means it can rapidly change,  
draw on a large community of contributors, and those contributions are  
traceable.

Whatever taxonomists make of them, others are starting to explore  
their uses (e.g., see Gene Wiki
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060175 
   for an interesting use of Wikipedia). The taxonomic community seems  
somehow afraid of them, yet I suggest this is not based on much more  
than folklore.

Mailing lists are conversations, and in the absence of archive and  
search tools such as http://taxacom.markmail.org/ , it becomes hard to  
extract information over time. The audience for any given mailing list  
is small (TAXACOM's subscribers will be a tiny subset of those  
interested in, or able to contribute to, taxonomy).

Database integration sites are important, but in many cases they lack  
ways for people to correct and annotate errors, even if those errors  
are obvious
(http://iphylo.blogspot.com/2008/06/more-gbif-errors-courtesy-of-fishbas
e.html 
  ). The fact that errors in GBIF persist for months, if not longer,  
suggests that this model of authoritative integration has flaws. If  
GBIF, say, had simple tools for community annotation they could  
dramatically improve the quality of their data.

I suggest that we need all three. Wiki's exploit the fact the the  
number of people able to improve a wiki page is vastly greater than  
the number of "experts" on the topic of that page. Already, Wikipedia  
handily beats EOL in terms of content, a situation I don't see  
changing anytime soon.

In closing, an interesting question would be why Wikipedia is so much  
more successful than Wikispecies.

Regards

Rod







On 29 Jul 2008, at 06:38, <Tony.Rees at csiro.au> <Tony.Rees at csiro.au>  
wrote:

> Hi Roger,
>
> My question would be, what is the scope of such potential
> "collaboration", and how is it different from (on one hand) a mailing
> list where people can ask or answer questions of a taxonomic nature,  
> (on
> another) data integration sites such as NBN, GBIF, OBIS etc., to which
> contributors can upload their own data, and (on the third hand -
> aliens/mutants only) wikipedia/wikispecies? (Although in principle the
> latter is for citations to existing work, not publication of original
> information).
>
> I would agree with Paddy that if you can provide a compelling enough
> answer to the first question, then EOL is a good potential home for
> whatever is possibly required, since a single one stop shop is in
> principle better than many...
>
> - Tony Rees
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Roger Hyam
> Sent: Tuesday, 29 July 2008 4:40 AM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: [Taxacom] taxon wikipedia type resources
>
>
> I was wondering if anyone could help me find some examples of taxonomy
> web sites that will accept contributions from general users in the
> style of wikipedia/wikispecies. To qualify they must allow anyone to
> register and contribute. Contributions must appear live, as part of
> the data without going through an editorial process. Sites that only
> allow users to comment or upload their own data don't really count. I
> am looking for collaborative works. The sites could cover any kind of
> taxonomic related information - not just actual taxa
>
> I am wondering why I don't come across such site in my work.
>
> Many thanks for your thoughts,
>
> Roger
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom mailing list
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom mailing list
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>

---------------------------------------------------------
Roderic Page
Professor of Taxonomy
DEEB, FBLS
Graham Kerr Building
University of Glasgow
Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK

Email: r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk
Tel: +44 141 330 4778
Fax: +44 141 330 2792
AIM: rodpage1962 at aim.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1112517192

http://iphylo.blogspot.com
http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html






_______________________________________________
Taxacom mailing list
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom





More information about the Taxacom mailing list