I have read with amusement the arguments why the Wikispecies project may not be a good idea by some of the ToL people. As much as I admire the work that went into the ToL and still goes into the ToL, it is also a project that has proven in the past that it is not open and willing to cooperate outside of its own project. When I asked to consider cooperation to come to a universal wikipedia taxobox, the answer was look at all our previous discussions things have been decided,, no we won't have that all over again.
The Wikispecies can have aspects that the current ToL does not have. It could have all published names with links to the author and the people making up the author attribute and obviously the publication. It could specify the basionym. It could specify what the next revision of a description is with the author, the persons, the publication data. It could have the scientific description as they are inherently public domain. It could have pictures from WikiCommons. It could have the nomen nudum, the nomen
If your interested I have a 80Mb MS/Access database with plant taxonomy that could be used for its datadesign. It is inherently relational and non wiki. It is not perfect but I know what is wrong with it.
Thanks, GerardM
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
If your interested I have a 80Mb MS/Access database with plant taxonomy that could be used for its datadesign. It is inherently relational and non wiki. It is not perfect but I know what is wrong with it.
If the information in that database is public domain, it should be used on wikipedia as well.
Magnus
Magnus Manske wrote:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
If your interested I have a 80Mb MS/Access database with plant taxonomy that could be used for its datadesign. It is inherently relational and non wiki. It is not perfect but I know what is wrong with it.
If the information in that database is public domain, it should be used on wikipedia as well.
Magnus _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
The database is public domain and it could be used in wikipedia as well. However, at this moment in time there are 70.143 records discrete names. There are 4.924 basonym information records, there are 948 standardised persons (who participated in descriptions and are part of an author label), there are 18.780 author labels. They are all mostly about cacti and succulents. Most of the names are not valid any more. Scientifically the names are _all_ valid. Cladistics are not part of this database.
Given the amount of attention in ToL to cacti at present, I do not think ToL is able to handle this load. In the current taxobox there is no room for an author like "(Ascherson & Barbey ex Durand & Barratte) S.Brullo & F.Furnari" (/Scilla barba-caprae/) .
The point is not that it cannot be used, the point is that a wikispecies does serve a function. The official (Latin and/or English) scientific description _is_ public domain for all names. This does not fit in the ToL as it is.
The ToL does not have what I call "Taxonominal systems" which are the links between names before and after a revision. I think this would make Wikispecies stand out if we get a lot of these on-line. In contrast to the publications of new names these are the hardest to get hold off.
Do not get me wrong, I do admire the ToL. It just does not cover everything that would be important in a scientifically important resource. There is a need for some additional tables to cope with the requirements that should be considered to make Wikispecies relevant.
Thanks, Gerard
Not related, but I would definitely like to see a supposed article headed somewhat like this:
Homo Sapiens --------------------- Common Name: Human --------------------- (biological information on humans, etc.) --------------------- Kingdom: <---- in a sidebar/side table on the right of the page Phylum: Subphylum: : ---------------------
James
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Magnus Manske Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 4:21 AM To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Wikispecies
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
If your interested I have a 80Mb MS/Access database with plant taxonomy that could be used for its datadesign. It is inherently relational and non wiki. It is not perfect but I know what is wrong with it.
If the information in that database is public domain, it should be used on wikipedia as well.
Magnus _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
I have read with amusement the arguments why the Wikispecies project may not be a good idea by some of the ToL people. As much as I admire the work that went into the ToL and still goes into the ToL, it is also a project that has proven in the past that it is not open and willing to cooperate outside of its own project. When I asked to consider cooperation to come to a universal wikipedia taxobox, the answer was look at all our previous discussions things have been decided,, no we won't have that all over again.
I think you are bringing your own baggage to the debate here and are uncriticising most ToL participants unfairly.
Only mav has out right said he doesn't like the idea of a separate wikimedia wikispecies project.
I asked to proceed cautiously, wanting to understand more about the two projects would interact before giving it my support.
The other 20-odd people listed as ToL participants have said nothing at all on this thread, and some have indicated to Benedikt in private that they are very pleased about the project.
Further the ToL project participants _have_ tentatively gone down the internationalization route - the templates are called {{Regnum}} not {{Kingdom}} etc, for example. What other WikiProjects have decided to help out internationalization to the detriment of their local project? I know of none.
The Wikispecies can have aspects that the current ToL does not have. It could have all published names with links to the author and the people making up the author attribute and obviously the publication. It could specify the basionym. It could specify what the next revision of a description is with the author, the persons, the publication data. It could have the scientific description as they are inherently public domain. It could have pictures from WikiCommons. It could have the nomen nudum, the nomen
I agree that a proper database would be the right way to do this in the context of providing advanced searches, rather than trying to cobble something together with templates and categories in mediawiki.
That said, the information you specify would, I am sure, be welcome in ToL pages.
Yes, I do bing my baggage with me. That is normal. Yes, it was only mav who was strongly negative. But give me credit, I do, and say so publicly, admire the effort that goes into the ToL. A lot of good people put a genuine effort in it and the quality is of an increasingly high standard.
With regard to the Taxobox, the nl:wikipedia uses something like the current en:taxobox. The one thing we do not like is the compulsary label of "binominal name" / "trinominal name" that is really redundant. But as no discussion was possible, we did not come to a unified taxon box. This is a real shame. The internationalisation with the use of messages like {{regnum}} was a great improvement. This does help the placement of taxoboxes on the nl:wikipedia a lot. With the latest iteration it became a lot more difficult to use the Taxobox. Discussions on the new taxobox format are ongoing on nl:
I would think that wikipedia and the ToL is not the best place to have all taxonomic data. It would result in extreme cases in 100 referalls to one plant. All 100 valid scientific publications with discrete names. I would keep the ToL like it is; an article for a currently valid name. A link from within ToL to Wikispecies would be great. The reason is that the public for wikipedia is a different public for wikispecies. Therefore ToL and Wikispecies will complement each other rather than that one takes away from the other.
GerardM
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
I have read with amusement the arguments why the Wikispecies project may not be a good idea by some of the ToL people. As much as I admire the work that went into the ToL and still goes into the ToL, it is also a project that has proven in the past that it is not open and willing to cooperate outside of its own project. When I asked to consider cooperation to come to a universal wikipedia taxobox, the answer was look at all our previous discussions things have been decided,, no we won't have that all over again.
This is an interesting observation for the general situation. It is quite a typical occurrence as systems mature. As a project grows it develops ways of doing things that work to the satisfaction of the majority, and a if-it-ain't-broke-don't-fix-it mentality sets in. That's both good and bad. It preserves what works, but tends to shut out innovation.
I've encounterred Gerard's innovation in another context where I have been doubtful of its applicability. The problem with innovation is that there are often unforseen implications that can disrupt other practices. Simply telling someone to read the past discussions is evasive. Saying that an issue has been decided, and that the need for further discussions has been obviated is not very wiki.
Ec
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org