Dear Wikipedia-I readers!
I am a graduate student of zoology at the University of Cambridge (though Austrian) and would like to share an idea for an urgent Wikipedia project. I contacted Jimbo Wales before and approach to you with his clear support for my idea.
Biologists who classify new species normally publish in specialized esoteric journals, which has led to an overwhelming amount of information with nobody keeping an overview. Even experts in very specialized fields often dont notice if a species has been formally recorded twice, three times or even more often. Therefore, it is not known how many species there are known and this is just as ridiculous as it sounds. We are not talking about all species that EXIST on earth - but simply the total number of species that were already RECORDED in scientific publications. Nobody knows how many there are. Expert A might think that there are 17 000 annelids known, expert B believes to know about 20 000. This is because there is no central registration process and no database or reference directory to browse information about the current state of knowledge on a particular species. This situation can be summarized with two statements:
1.) A central, more extensive database for taxonomy is urgently needed. All their advantages are demonstrated strikingly by bases like www.wikipedia.org
2.) A central, more extensive database for taxonomy is feasible. Wikipedia proved the technical feasibility; other existing species directories like www.fishbase.org or http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/index.html prove the need for this kind of a database and the willingness of volunteers to make the commitment to contribute.
Based on these key statements, I define two major tasks:
1.) Figure out how the contents of the data base would need to be presented by asking experts, potential non-professional users and comparing that with existing data bases. My part.
2.) Figure out how to do the software, which hardware is required and how to cover the costs by asking experts, looking for fellow volunteers and potential sponsors.
And this is why I really need Wikipedia. I am a zoologist. Animal stuff. Theres a lot of geeky-ness in me, but of the bug-kind rather then the tech-kind, and therefore, I need support on this side. Cambridge provides a pool of knowledge, experts and a good name for great scientific achievements and Wikipedia has a big pool of passionate people who believe in the freedom of information and sharing knowledge. Wikipedia also has the skills of supporting my plans with the software that is required. The idea of this project is still very young, although others have tried similar things before. Alas, nobody has access to know-how and the passion of the WWW community to the extend that Wikipedia has it and that is required to succeed.
Previous work with similar targets
In molecular biology and genetics open databases for genes or proteins are already very important, only taxonomy, the most internet-related of all sciences, still lacks the advantages of an online network. Due to that lack, there are already some databases that tried to establish species directories. The most important ones are Integrated Taxonomic Information System (www.it is.usda.gov/) focusing on species of North America and its European equivalent Species 2000 (www.sp2000.org/). Both directories try to connect other, existing databases to an integrated unit. Furthermore, there are ambitious commitments by the ALL Species Foundation (http://www.all-species.org/) with much ado about almost nothing, a small but charming database from the University of Michigan http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/index.html) and other, partly commercial directories. All these websites have some things in common: They lack of funding, are mismanaged, created for experts and scientists, limited to a particular group of species or a region, or face other difficulties. To put it in a nutshell: There is a need for www.wikispecies.org!
Please support this idea. I am highly motivated to work on this project. I hope that a lot of passion for it will develop in others, there is already a lot in me. Thank you very much in advance. Kind regards,
Benedikt
---------------------------- Benedikt M. Mandl Department of Zoology Downing Street Cambridge CB2 1ST United Kingdom benedikt.mandl@gmx.at
As a fellow biologist (biochemistry, though), I think this is a great idea. Be sure to register www.wikispecies.org ASAP, before some domain-grabber takes it. Also, make sure all information in that database-to-come is public domain or GFDL, so wikipedia can harvest data and images :-)
Once you have a running server, setting up the software should be easy. Folks at mediawiki-l will be glad to help with any secific problems that might arise.
Magnus
Benedikt Mandl wrote:
Dear Wikipedia-I readers!
I am a graduate student of zoology at the University of Cambridge (though Austrian) and would like to share an idea for an urgent Wikipedia project. I contacted Jimbo Wales before and approach to you with his clear support for my idea.
Biologists who classify new species normally publish in specialized esoteric journals, which has led to an overwhelming amount of information with nobody keeping an overview. Even experts in very specialized fields often don’t notice if a species has been formally recorded twice, three times or even more often. Therefore, it is not known how many species there are known – and this is just as ridiculous as it sounds. We are not talking about all species that EXIST on earth - but simply the total number of species that were already RECORDED in scientific publications. Nobody knows how many there are. Expert A might think that there are 17 000 annelids known, expert B believes to know about 20 000. This is because there is no central registration process and no database or reference directory to browse information about the current state of knowledge on a particular species. This situation can be summarized with two statements:
1.) A central, more extensive database for taxonomy is urgently needed. All their advantages are demonstrated strikingly by bases like www.wikipedia.org
2.) A central, more extensive database for taxonomy is feasible. Wikipedia proved the technical feasibility; other existing species directories like www.fishbase.org or http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/index.html prove the need for this kind of a database and the willingness of volunteers to make the commitment to contribute.
Based on these key statements, I define two major tasks:
1.) Figure out how the contents of the data base would need to be presented – by asking experts, potential non-professional users and comparing that with existing data bases. My part.
2.) Figure out how to do the software, which hardware is required and how to cover the costs – by asking experts, looking for fellow volunteers and potential sponsors.
And this is why I really need Wikipedia. I am a zoologist. Animal stuff. There’s a lot of geeky-ness in me, but of the bug-kind rather then the tech-kind, and therefore, I need support on this side. Cambridge provides a pool of knowledge, experts and a good name for great scientific achievements – and Wikipedia has a big pool of passionate people who believe in the freedom of information and sharing knowledge. Wikipedia also has the skills of supporting my plans with the software that is required. The idea of this project is still very young, although others have tried similar things before. Alas, nobody has access to know-how and the passion of the WWW community to the extend that Wikipedia has it and that is required to succeed.
Previous work with similar targets
In molecular biology and genetics open databases for genes or proteins are already very important, only taxonomy, the most internet-related of all sciences, still lacks the advantages of an online network. Due to that lack, there are already some databases that tried to establish species directories. The most important ones are “Integrated Taxonomic Information System” (www.it is.usda.gov/) focusing on species of North America and its European equivalent Species 2000 (www.sp2000.org/). Both directories try to connect other, existing databases to an integrated unit. Furthermore, there are ambitious commitments by the “ALL Species Foundation” (http://www.all-species.org/) with much ado about almost nothing, a small but charming database from the University of Michigan http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/index.html) and other, partly commercial directories. All these websites have some things in common: They lack of funding, are mismanaged, created for experts and scientists, limited to a particular group of species or a region, or face other difficulties. To put it in a nutshell: There is a need for www.wikispecies.org!
Please support this idea. I am highly motivated to work on this project. I hope that a lot of passion for it will develop in others, there is already a lot in me. Thank you very much in advance. Kind regards,
Benedikt
Benedikt M. Mandl Department of Zoology Downing Street Cambridge CB2 1ST United Kingdom benedikt.mandl@gmx.at
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 03:04:09PM +0200, Magnus Manske wrote:
domain-grabber takes it. Also, make sure all information in that database-to-come is public domain or GFDL, so wikipedia can harvest data and images :-)
(sidenote: consider using a Creative Commons free license, for example http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/, which is - as far as I know - compatible with GFDL and LGPL and many other free licenses, while GFDL may be not.)
--- Peter Gervai grin@tolna.net wrote:
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 03:04:09PM +0200, Magnus Manske wrote:
domain-grabber takes it. Also, make sure all information in that database-to-come is public domain or GFDL, so wikipedia can harvest data and images :-)
(sidenote: consider using a Creative Commons free license, for example http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/, which is - as far as I know
- compatible with GFDL and LGPL and many other free licenses, while GFDL may
be not.)
It most certainly is *not* compatible. This in fact is an issue that Jimbo, RMS, and Larry Lessig want to fix.
-- mav
_______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now. http://messenger.yahoo.com
I think there is room for such a project to co-exist with wikipedia, but I think you're vastly underestimating the human obstacles to creating something that is not just a weak half-clone of WP content.
The chief problem I see is to get some sort of cross-discipline cooperation. For instance, FishBase has made a good start with fish, but the database entries for beetles or plants will be mostly different; sure, there is some sharing, but the coleopterists' approach to taxonomy is (seemingly :-) ) rather more chaotic, and, well, the botanists have seven different ways just to define the concept of "species", not least because plants easily do the equivalent of crossing humans with tamarins and getting fertile offspring, and molecular info doesn't necessarily demystify either. So you're talking about pushing all of these specialists into a single framework, and if they don't fit well, they're not going to participate.
So before talking to developers about software, you need to talk with people in different areas and get an agreement in principle. Could the FishBase guys sign on to import their data into a cross-phylum project? Are there coleopterists able and willing to mechanize the immense number of characters that differentiate their subjects? Will specialist experts even want to participate in a wiki that anybody can edit, or will they only want a more controlled environment?
And finally, what content would this have that is not just as appropriate for WP, and do the WPers agree with setting that boundary? For instance, the full list of papers reporting every sighting of a species of plant seems too detailed for WP, but I could imagine a parallel set of "dig deeper" articles that go all out on that sort of thing.
Stan
I think there is room for such a project to co-exist with wikipedia, but I think you're vastly underestimating the human obstacles to creating something that is not just a weak half-clone of WP content.
I don't think I am underestimating these challenges - in fact they are one of my main worries, but will be sorted out when they become more urgent.
The chief problem I see is to get some sort of cross-discipline cooperation. For instance, FishBase has made a good start with fish, but the database entries for beetles or plants will be mostly different; sure, there is some sharing, but the coleopterists' approach to taxonomy is (seemingly :-) ) rather more chaotic, and, well, the botanists have seven different ways just to define the concept of "species"...
And so do Zoologist and there is a great argument going on about how many KINGDOMS apart from animals and plants there might be - but again: There are plenty of contents we will be able to put together even if the taxonomic background of a particular species is unclear. If fact, the wiki approach is perfectly suitable for a dynamic science such as taxonomy.
So you're talking about pushing all of these specialists into a single framework, and if they don't fit well, they're not going to participate.
They will: An expert on bats of Panama will not care about whether archaebacteria have thir own kingdom or not - as long as the bats' features are worked out properly. Every branch of the taxonomic tree has its own leaves, in paper-publications as well as it will have to be in wikispecies.
So before talking to developers about software, you need to talk with people in different areas and get an agreement in principle. Could the FishBase guys sign on to import their data into a cross-phylum project?
I don't agree with that. Fishbase is fairly scientific and partly commercial. It is not open access as wiki projects are. To me it is the best species directory on the web; still, I don't know if fishbase will co-operate, I will give it a shot as soon as I got technical support. They do co-operate with Species2000, so there's hope...
And finally, what content would this have that is not just as appropriate for WP, and do the WPers agree with setting that boundary? For instance, the full list of papers reporting every sighting of a species of plant seems too detailed for WP, but I could imagine a parallel set of "dig deeper" articles that go all out on that sort of thing.
Your example is a good one. Also, a determination key might be useful and generally a lot of details that are not relevant in an encyclopedia. Schematic drawings. Keys for text-only browsers that can be read on PDAs for field work. A range of things that WP would not want to provide.
Benedikt
PS: Anybody keen on helping out with the tech-part? Setting up a basic structure?
On Monday 23 August 2004 17:06, Benedikt Mandl wrote:
And finally, what content would this have that is not just as appropriate for WP, and do the WPers agree with setting that boundary? For instance, the full list of papers reporting every sighting of a species of plant seems too detailed for WP, but I could imagine a parallel set of "dig deeper" articles that go all out on that sort of thing.
Your example is a good one. Also, a determination key might be useful and generally a lot of details that are not relevant in an encyclopedia. Schematic drawings. Keys for text-only browsers that can be read on PDAs for field work. A range of things that WP would not want to provide.
I'd like to see the set of characters by which taxonomists determine that a particular plant belongs to, say, the Rosales. Delta/Angio has this for flowering plant families, but it's in highly technical jargon. Which suggests another thing that should be in it: an explanation of all this jargon (cyme, raceme, gamosepalous, bitegmic, Polygonum-type, etc.).
phma
Could somebody help us out:
Do you think you could use your data and wiki software to set up a
beta-test-version of wikispecies? I could set the wikispecies.org to any
URL at any time.
Benedikt
The current software and data that I have is easy to provide. However, to create a Wikispecies based on what I have is non-trivial. The complicating factor is that I am not a PHP programmer and, I am not a MySQL man I am a relational database man. I am also involved in wiktionary, there I am trying things that are complicated as well. This is in the nurturing stage. I cannot do everything.
Gerard
Pierre Abbat wrote:
On Monday 23 August 2004 17:06, Benedikt Mandl wrote:
And finally, what content would this have that is not just as appropriate for WP, and do the WPers agree with setting that boundary? For instance, the full list of papers reporting every sighting of a species of plant seems too detailed for WP, but I could imagine a parallel set of "dig deeper" articles that go all out on that sort of thing.
Your example is a good one. Also, a determination key might be useful and generally a lot of details that are not relevant in an encyclopedia. Schematic drawings. Keys for text-only browsers that can be read on PDAs for field work. A range of things that WP would not want to provide.
I'd like to see the set of characters by which taxonomists determine that a particular plant belongs to, say, the Rosales. Delta/Angio has this for flowering plant families, but it's in highly technical jargon. Which suggests another thing that should be in it: an explanation of all this jargon (cyme, raceme, gamosepalous, bitegmic, Polygonum-type, etc.).
"Characteristics" rather than "characters" :-)
Explaining these should remain a part of Wikipedia, even with a Wikispecies. What Wikispecies may be more suited to is the development of differential keys with questions like, "Does the leaf have smooth or serrated edges?"
Ec
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org