[Taxacom] WoRMS fixes Kerguelenia ...
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Fri Sep 3 17:59:26 CDT 2010
> I don't know of anything better for my taxonomic group
yes, but I was comparing the structure, not the content
currently, there is very little on Wikispecies for your group, but imagine equal
content and ask which would be better then ...
>For I think the third time today I will state
Yep, got it, but for someone who wanted to cite a source and authority for the
species currently included in a genus, for example, Wikispecies would provide
them with a much more convenient and straightforward way of doing that than
WoRMS, that's all ...
From: Geoffrey Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz>
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Fri, 3 September, 2010 9:12:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] WoRMS fixes Kerguelenia ...
On completeness of content I agree - more work to be done for sure in
WoRMS in many places to fill in the details and eliminate error. We need
more backroom elves, more time, but I find the database sure has its uses
as is. I don't know of anything better for my taxonomic group, where the
content consists mostly of a 'donated' database put together in his own
time over decades by one specialist.
On edit history of a genus page just mentally remove the list of species
links because they aren't relevant to the genus record. For I think the
third time today I will state that the history list of editors and dates
(and the suggested authorship citation of the genus status information) is
associated to information in the genus record, not to the total page
content display, which for your immediate convenience (and it is very
convenient) includes the current child taxa edited elsewhere, plainly in a
list labeled "child taxa", and also includes other interesting stuff, some
of which has its own edit information visible if you click on the detail.
The list of contexts (claimed regional occurrences) also can be the work
of other workers, not the person who last edited the status of the genus.
On Fri, September 3, 2010 6:26 pm, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> * either the edit history should be removed for taxon pages above species,
> they ought to log any changes affecting those higher taxon pages. As
> things are,
> the user can cite a page whose content can change dramatically without any
> indication of this in the edit history of the cited page itself, and this
> easily lead to problems...
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these
Or (2) a Google search specified as: site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom
your search terms here
More information about the Taxacom