[Taxacom] Wikispecies has gone to the dogs, best to disregard it now
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Thu Apr 30 16:34:49 CDT 2015
Thank you Nadia and Adolf for actually taking the time to think about what I posted, unlike some others on Taxacom who merely gave a knee-jerk response (with emphasis on the "jerk") aimed at me. The matter is a serious one to the extent that people do go to these Wikimedia sites for information, and I'm not sure how many of them understand the extent to which the "information" presented is a result of power plays and "consensus" (=mob rule, =oppression of minority views). These Wikimedia sites are governed from within, by "community consensus", but the community is simply a function of who manages to avoid being blocked, and the community can choose enforce or not any "rule" it likes. The inevitable result is mobs of vicious little pricks making up and enforcing the "rules" as they go along. The wider public deserves better than this. The sites simply get dominated by those who take pleasure in devaluing and obstructing the work of anyone who does not
conform to their own short-sighted goals and limited abilities. Unfortunately, there are some people like this also in taxonomy and on Taxacom.
On Fri, 1/5/15, Nadia Talent <nadia.talent at utoronto.ca> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Wikispecies has gone to the dogs, best to disregard it now
To: "Adolf Ceska" <aceska at telus.net>
Cc: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, "Scott Thomson" <scott.thomson321 at gmail.com>, "Taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Received: Friday, 1 May, 2015, 1:11 AM
Stephen, I’m surprised that you
have persisted so long with wikispecies. I gave up long ago
when it became clear that for vascular plants the
philosophy of wikispecies was being used to belligerently
“correct" more recent taxonomy, such as that citable to
the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group and World Checklist of
Selected Plant Families back to the 1964 A. Engler's
Syllabus der Pflanzenfamilien. As Adolf describes, there is
no real remedy against ignorance that doesn’t involve many
hours of soul-destroying argument with the ignorami. The
notion that simple is better than accurate seems to be
entrenched in many minds (or perhaps “minds” is not the
correct term). Wikipedia actually has the
ignorami-rule-accuracy-takes-second-place approach enshrined
in the section "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook,
textbook, or scientific journal"
as of 28 April 2015 outlaws any text in the lead section of
an article that isn't "written on the assumption that the
reader will not or cannot follow [the] [hyper]links, instead
attempting to infer their meaning from the text" where the
reader is defined as "any literate reader of Wikipedia
without any knowledge in the given field”.
The lead sentences of the page Aneuploidy were recently
replaced by nonsense, in order to avoid the word
“monoploid”, which some people who claim to be educated
about genetics are not familiar with. The problem was
eventually resolved by installing text that is both readable
and accurate, but this only came about after a huge fuss.
Without the fuss, I am sure that the simple, false statement
would have persisted, and the person trying to revert to a
correct statement would probably have been blocked from
editing. It was such a small thing, but the number of
volunteers who think they know enough and who resist
checking any references is, well, depressing.
The Simple English wikipedia is even worse; if anyone feels
a need to be appalled, try looking at:
where it was proposed that a project be set up to edit
medical articles, so that participants in a class on medical
communication could be invited to contribute to the wiki.
Nope, experts mustn’t be encouraged, we’d rather present
inaccurate medical information.
I’ve just started reading all the posts at http://wikipediocracy.com
It was recommended to me by a wikipedian colleague as
somewhat heartening. I don’t yet have much idea of how
helpful it could prove to be.
Royal Ontario Museum,
Green Plant Herbarium (TRT),
Department of Natural History,
100 Queen's Park,
Toronto, Canada, M5S 2C6
On Apr 30, 2015, at 3:22, Adolf Ceska <aceska at telus.net>
> I have been using a great database for storing photos,
microphotos and drawings of collected objects that should
enhance our herbarium collection database. This jpeg
database has been brilliantly programmed and it uses all the
system design conventions computer programmers have ever
developed. Furthermore, it has an email attached to it that
the users can interact and discuss identification problems.
It would have been an ideal tool as an extension of a
regular herbarium database system. The problem is that it
was designed and developed without any major participation
of the herbarium data management people. I am in the same
situation as you are, whenever I call for fixing some
obvious blunders in the system, I am being ignored.
Everything I say is just my usual rhetoric, not worthy of a
> Adolf Ceska
More information about the Taxacom