[Taxacom] Completion of 'The Plant List'
Paul van Rijckevorsel
dipteryx at freeler.nl
Fri Dec 31 06:40:48 CST 2010
From: "Roderic Page" <r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk>
Sent: Friday, December 31, 2010 11:28 AM
> Dear Paul,
> I don't think I've been entirely unobservant (e.g., my "Wikipedia as an
> encyclopaedia of life", http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s13127-010-0028-9,
> preprint available at http://hdl.handle.net/10101/npre.2010.4242.1 ).
If need be, I would accept that as suggestive of being unobservant,
although it would be much more accurate to say that it shows a very
* * *
> I guess we have rather different views on Wikipedia, see also the recent
> news piece in Nature "No rest for the bio-wikis"
Yes, but note that in spite of the available expertise and manpower
they are noting existing limitations. Separate projects are being set
* * *
>> Even the casual user will have noted that many
>> pages with topics that depend on a good photograph or
>> illustration do not have this photograph or illustration (or
>> a very poor one), because those who hold the rights to such
>> material have (wisely) decided not to donate their material
>> to all comers, who can then do whatever they like with it.
> Wikipedia's licensing isn't quite equivalent to "who can then do whatever
> they like with it". Typically Wikipedia content is available under a
> Creative Commons BY-SA license, which specifically requires people making
> use of that content to:
> 1. give attribution
> 2. if they redistribute work based on Wikipedia, they must use the same
> (or compatible license)
> You may feel sharing under these conditions is unwise. Under what
> circumstances would you recommend it?
I have no recommendations to make to individual persons, except to
think before they leap. However, it would clearly already make a big
difference if they shifted to a license excluding commercial use.
More information about the Taxacom