[Taxacom] The strain between Wikipedia and Science
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Fri Feb 11 20:29:20 CST 2011
the point is that Wikipedia, Wikispecies, Species-ID, etc. are all good for
*some* purposes, and have their own rules
if you write with the rules in mind, then there should be no problem ... but if
you try to rewrite the rules to suit yourself, then expect opposition ...
From: Francisco Welter-Schultes <fwelter at gwdg.de>
To: TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU; Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu>
Sent: Sat, 12 February, 2011 9:25:18 AM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] The strain between Wikipedia and Science
interesting contribution, thanks for your time.
Basic line is, the problems that I addressed, do not exist. Well.
Okay, I made better experiences in the English, Portuguese and
I appreciate your engagement.
> Of course, for someone who is unable or unwilling to
> spend the time necessary to deal with administrators, this may not
> seem like such a great system ("Sure, I can eventually win this
> battle, but if it takes 2 months, is it worth my time?").
Exactly the problem. I did this once. I had to prove that the term
"epithet" is not the term used for "specific name" in zoology, only
in botany. I finally won the game against a person - certainly a
skilled scientist, but obviously with little experience in
nomenclature - who had found two references where "epithet" was
mentioned to be the term used in zoology (one was a university
script), and was totally surprised about my contribution. I checked
Google Scholar and came to the result that 98 % of the zoological
papers there used "specific name", 2 % "epithet". Only after that
and with reference to the Code my initial contrubution was admitted.
I decided for myself never to do anything alike again. Experiencing
this once was okay, but not a second time. In the next revert war I
did not repeat this, I just went outside the German WP, and escaped
to the English site (the Germans are not really unfriendly. I asked
him if he would mind if I post my contribution to the English site,
and he said he would not delete my contribution from there. And he
Since then I behave like Nadia, just escaping the fields where
another person holds the rights.
Okay Doug, you would say, nobody holds rights. But practical life is
It is not that I am not the person who would tend to avoid a
discussion. You can learn a lot in such discussions. It is not
useless to discuss. Also with amateurs and non-experts. No
problem. They may know a lot more than I know. But if people just
delete your contributions and refuse discussing about it (except
writing "you must provide a published reference that I accept, or I
will delete you again"), and you learn they are protected by the
other members in the circle, well, what will you do.
In some cases I have poposed to improve some things. Usually
standards. The answer is usually, well, this has been discussed 2-4
years ago and we finally decided to have it this way. Would be much
work to change it. So we will not change it. They seem tired.
Occasionally someone complains "over and over again the same
discussion", without realising that the only solution is to change
the standard so that people won't complain repeatedly any more. As a
scientist I am used to a certain standard. If the standard is too
low, I won't feel invited to contribute.
The name of the author in a taxonomic name is linked with the
homepage of that person, instead of linking author and year to a
record of the publication where the name was published. Why else do
we cite author and year? Nobody in WP seems to have understood this.
In WP the original combination of a zoological name of a species is
called a synonym of its current combination. No matter in which
language version. The Germans immediately reverted my post when I
suggested to replace "synonyms" by "other combinations", and
explained explicitly that "synonym" is an ambiguous term in such a
context and it might be better to use a neutral term. I tried to
explain the problem on the page "Synonym (Zoology)", by giving the
references in the Code that different genus-species combinations of
the same specific name are not synonyms in the nomenclatural sense.
They immediately deleted it. This is not directly in the Code. We
will only allow you to post your comment in here once the Code has
been changed. Well, nobody can help them any more, I guess.
I participated in a discussion in the Portuguese WP, who asked me for
my opinion in this point, but it seems they finally decided not to
modify the traditional use of the term "synonym" there. Would be too
much work to change it. Much more friendly, but the result is the
This kind of things.
Yes, I agree, WP is useful. I often use it. But its bad reputation is
University of Goettingen, Germany
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