[Taxacom] WoRMS fixes Kerguelenia ...

Geoffrey Read gread at actrix.gen.nz
Fri Sep 3 01:09:01 CDT 2010


Hi Stephen,

As already explained when you look at genus-level you are looking in
effect at a summary display. Whereas in this case the changes took place
in the species-level entries elsewhere.  That's where you go. Okay, go
there and, sure, the pages for those won't show the before and after
content, only evidence that an improvement (hopefully) has occurred. If
you want that before & after, if it's relevant to your work to have a
history of spelling corrections in WoRMS, then it's up to you to record it
as you go. As I said earlier it's possible to do that easily.

In this case you knew the Kerguelenia species spellings were not as
published. Well, you're obviously the one guy that's never going to cite
this page (the wrong page to cite anyway) - except for fussing about it on
Taxacom.  I know it won't impress you if I say that users should always
check the original information once they've found it on a secondary source
like WoRMS, but it's true. Just the same as with literature cites in
commercial products from ISI and the like - plenty of errors there and we
know to expect some.

On making more interesting corrections and changes than attending to data
entry misspellings, I suppose it's possible in my own editing that I can
make public notes explaining changes more than I do already (I do keep
track in my private notes), but I can tell you it can get very very
complicated fixing faulty interrelated database records, and I doubt many
people would be interested in the detail of my editing work. Only in the
result.


Geoff

On Fri, September 3, 2010 4:31 pm, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> 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...






More information about the Taxacom mailing list