[Taxacom] Data query

Paul van Rijckevorsel dipteryx at freeler.nl
Wed Jun 26 03:18:19 CDT 2013

From: <Tony.Rees at csiro.au>
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 3:58 AM
> This is a known issue and not just for wikispecies (or Wikipedia) [...]

There is a difference here: most websites aim to present 
one (hopefully definitive) way to classify any one taxon,
while disregarding all others (except in synonymy). The 
problem at Wikipedia is the reverse: Wikipedia prescribes 
that all ways to classify a taxon are to be given coverage 
each in proportion to its prominence (the views held by 
Linnaeus are not of great scientific interest, but rather are 
historical features), but there is a strong lobby (Stephen 
Thorpe's "army") that will act to prevent this (this same 
"army" will act in many instances, but not as suggested, 
when misinformation is entered, as evidenced by all the 
junk that is there).

[As an aside note: Wikipedia should not, as suggested by 
Stephen Thorpe, be mined for references. Even leaving
aside those users that will add a spurious list of references 
to make their point of view appear more believable, there 
are all sorts of reasons why the references in Wikipedia 
entries may not pan out. Every reference should be checked
before re-using and it should not be assumed that they
are anywhere near the most authoritative sources 


More information about the Taxacom mailing list