[Taxacom] WoRMS fixes Kerguelenia ...
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Thu Sep 2 23:31:05 CDT 2010
>For arguing over who did what - yes. For efficient updating of information -
>no. :-). I totally take your point that going back in time
to view a previous state is possible in Wikis without the forethought that would
necessary in WoRMS. Just don't know how often one would need to
I think it is very important, not just for arguing over who did what, but
because of the dynamic nature of biodiversity information. It is important in
just the same way as citing a publication is important, i.e., what you cite must
be archived in the form that it was in when you cited it, or else it means
little or nothing. The Wiki system provides the most efficient way possible to
do that - otherwise you have to take a screen shot or download and publish it if
you want your work to be verifiable by your readers (and we all do want that,
Again, if we look at the edit history for the Kerguelenia genus page:
2004-12-21 15:54:05Z created Bellan-Santini, Denise
2004-12-21 15:54:05Z checked Costello, Mark
2005-07-25 06:54:52Z changed Espinel, Nadjejda
2007-02-08 07:55:58Z changed De Broyer, Claude
2010-07-22 08:44:07Z changed Lowry, Jim
2010-08-26 13:28:30Z changed Lowry, Jim
I still fail to see anything of use here! The entries don't link to archived
documents, and you don't know it what way the page was changed or checked by
these editors. It looks good, but is completely pointless ...
If someone cited this Kerguelenia page on 2010-08-27, just before the recent
problem was fixed, if you try to verify what they did, you come to the
conclusion that they misread the page, because now when you look at their cited
link, you see different info and no indication of subsequent changes...
From: Geoffrey Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz>
To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Fri, 3 September, 2010 4:11:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] WoRMS fixes Kerguelenia ...
On Fri, September 3, 2010 1:57 pm, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> Yep, got it Geoff ... but don't you think that the Wiki system, with
> stable URLs
> to every previous version of a page, is better?
For arguing over who did what - yes. For efficient updating of
information - no. :-). I totally take your point that going back in time
to view a previous state is possible in Wikis without the forethought that
would necessary in WoRMS. Just don't know how often one would need to.
> So, how should we interpret the "edit history" on a WoRMS genus page like
> Kerguelenia? What does it tell us?
Each date indicates that the taxon Xus was edited on that day by the said
person for any of taxon name, authority, rank, parent taxon, status,
accepted name, type, type designation, environment, fossil range. Mostly
all things relating to the nomenclature of the name. The edit might be
really trivial but the edit history will still update.
Updating or linking sources in WoRMS does not create a new edit date for
the taxon record, nor does adding various notes. But you can look at the
details of notes to see their individual edit histories.
One nifty thing you can do in WoRMS is to click on a source details link
and see all the taxa linked to that publication. Very handy sometimes -
including for spotting errors such as two variant entries in the
More information about the Taxacom