[Zoobank-list] RE: [iczn-list] ICZN in Wikipedia

Fri Sep 30 22:38:55 BST 2005

First, apologies for the cross-posting.  I think this topic of discussion
(below) has relevance to ZooBank.  Not so much specifically for the role of
Wikipedia (I know there are subscribers to the ZooBank list who can comment
with greater authority on this) -- but more generally the issue of balancing
"open access" with "quality control".

As members of the ZooBank list know, I have been advocating the "Scenario 2"
paradigm for nomenclatural registration; that is, the paradigm where the act
of registration itself contains enough information that it renders the
registered name automatically "available" (i.e., compliant with minimum
criteria of availability under ICZN), thereby disentangling the "legal"
aspect of nomenclatural availability from the "science" side of taxonomy as
is already established in the current Code.

One of the largest concerns of this approach is the "quality control" of
newly registered names.

Under the current Code, there is nothing stoping someone from drafting a
one-paragraph "original description" of a new taxon name, containing the
same bits of information that would be included in a registration entry
(i.e., the minimal bits of information required by the current Code to
establish nomenclatural availability), and then "self-publishing" this
one-paragraph description via minimal ICZN-compliant standards.  Thus, with
the addition of some ink and paper, "Scenario 2" effectively aready exists.

Although there is some "abuse" of this liberal allowance of the Code (i.e.,
self-publishing), I don't think it rates high among the current factors
contributing to the taxonomic crisis we would all like to solve (e.g.,
alongside factors such as insufficient funding, etc.). The reason is that
scientists' reputations are defined by their contributions to science, and
most scientists would prefer not to tarnish their reputations through the
production of sloppy work. Nevertheless, I think most taxonomists would
agree that, through ZooBank, it would be great to reduce or eliminate this
problem through the application of *some* form of quality control.

Quality control is one of the main hallmarks of Doug Yanega's (Scenario 3)
proposal.  Scenario 1 essentially leaves the current system in place.  Where
it bears most discussion is in the context of Scenario 2.

It may well be the case that defining "registration=availabilty" could open
the floodgates to bogus/lame name registration, and we might end up with a
an unnecessary clutter of junior synonym names.  Although it's technically
possible for this to be a problem now, the question is whether "lowering the
bar of effort" (i.e., eliminating the need to go through the motions of
minimal self-publication with paper), and/or increased awareness of this
"loophole" of zoological nomenclature (which would become defacto standard
in Scenario 2) would dramatically increase the abundance of unneeded new
names.

So...the real point of this email is to underscore the delicate balance of
"open access" with "quality control" in the context of a "Scenario 2"
approach to name registration.

For ZooBank, the very first level of control would be to require anyone who
wishes to register new names in Zoology to first register themselves with
ZooBank.  Such a registration process would need to be largely
unrestrictive, but designed in such a way as to minimize or avoid anonymous
registrants.  Removal of anonymity automatically confers a level of
self-imposed quality control.

The next level would be for the ZooBank system to monitor various statistics
about names registered, and the "fates" of those names.  The metric of
"fate" would require that ZooBank allow for secondary indexing of subsequent
treatments of registered names, indicating whether those subsequent
treatments regarded the registered name to represent a valid taxon, or a
junior synonym of a higher-priority name.  Such a feature of
cross-referencing registered names to subsequent treatments, though not a
component of mandatory registration itself, seems to be a logical and HIGHLY
desirable feature of ZooBank anyway.

With access to information about patterns of name-usage history, the real
abusers should be very easy to spot.  At the most benign, individual
registered users of ZooBank might have some sort of "valid rate" score
(maybe analagous to Google's PageRank) to show how well their work is
generally received by the taxonomic community.  I'm sure that algorithms
could be developed to send warnings to individuals who are chronic repeat
offenders about treating nomenclatural registration with a little more
respect.  Perhaps at some level, access to the registration system could be
suspended or revoked.

Or...maybe not.  But in any case, I think that the power of electronic
registration of names will offer us unprecedented opportunities for
implementing quality control.

Perhaps those more familiar with Wikipedia and other public-access
information resources (e.g., GenBank) can lend insight into mechanisms to
prevent bogus data content from overly cluttering the system, while still
maintaining open access.

Aloha,
Rich

Richard L. Pyle, PhD
Ichthyology, Bishop Museum
1525 Bernice St., Honolulu, HI 96817
Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252
email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/staff/pylerichard.html

-----Original Message-----
From: iczn-list-bounces at afriherp.org
[mailto:iczn-list-bounces at afriherp.org]On Behalf Of Emma C. Rainforth
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 9:57 AM
To: Zoological Nomenclature Discussion Group
Subject: Re: [iczn-list] ICZN in Wikipedia

yes, but (!) - even with archiving, Joe Public who looks up info is not
going to know who is authoritative and who is not.

Yes, of course that is quite true. However, firstly they do archive, which
means that even after the 10-year old deletes an entry, it is still there
for those who go and look for it. Secondly, there is beginning to be
somewhat of a quality control, with something of a guard on what is good.
...
Ever hopefully (although not optimistically),
Paul

 ----- Original Message -----

From: Emma C. Rainforth
To: Zoological Nomenclature Discussion Group
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 8:07 PM
Subject: Re: [iczn-list] ICZN in Wikipedia

The problem with Wikipedia is that anyone can contribute (which it's
proponents consider it's strength). So, any moron can write whatever they
want. So YOU can spend hours making changes so that everything is correct.
But someone can come along the next day and write whatever THEY want, and
delete all the correct info you put in. There is no review process, unlike a
print encyclopedia or Encarta, etc. So someone on the Commission (about as
authoritative as you can get) can write an entry, and a 10-year-old can
delete it and replace it with their own info. There is nothing to "ensure"
that "authoritative" material can stay.

My experience is that most geological information you can find on Wikipedia
is incorrect, either grossly or in the fine details. Given that I COULD take
the time to correct things, I don't, because someone else can simply delete
what I wrote, making what I did a complete waste of my time.

When I make my students locate information for homework assignments, I
specifically ban them from using Wikipedia (and I give them the reasons).
It is the simplest way to deal with this website, IMHO.

Jadedly,
Emma

I noticed that wikipedia is beginning to turn up strongly in
Google-searches. Apparently this is going to be an online reference that
many people will be using as THE reference, if only because it is easily
available.

To prevent all those people being misinformed I have begun to clean up the
botanical nomenclature entries, which were in a terrible state. Actually,
Wikipedia had entries of "scientific classification" which happily bounced
back and forth between items belonging in ICZN / ICBN / ICNCP. I more or
less separated out the botanical parts, and the remnant should be
zoological.

I am rather dubious about the quality, but don't want to involve myself
deeply in describing the workings of the ICZN. Maybe a zoologist should see
to it that wikipedia gets the basics right?

http://en.wikipedia.org

Best, Paul

_______________________________________________
iczn-list mailing list
iczn-list at afriherp.org
http://list.afriherp.org/mailman/listinfo/iczn-list

--

Emma C. Rainforth, Ph.D.
Geosciences Rm. 206B
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
61 Rt. 9W
Palisades
NY 10964-8000
tel. (845) 365-8621
fax (801) 838-4126
emmar at ldeo.columbia.edu
Home page: http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~emmar/research/indexr.html

_______________________________________________
iczn-list mailing list
iczn-list at afriherp.org
http://list.afriherp.org/mailman/listinfo/iczn-list

_______________________________________________
iczn-list mailing list
iczn-list at afriherp.org
http://list.afriherp.org/mailman/listinfo/iczn-list

--

Emma C. Rainforth, Ph.D.
Geosciences Rm. 206B
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
61 Rt. 9W
Palisades
NY 10964-8000
tel. (845) 365-8621
fax (801) 838-4126
emmar at ldeo.columbia.edu
Home page: http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~emmar/research/indexr.html