Why aren't we there yet?
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Why aren't we there yet?

on

  • 3,111 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
3,111
Views on SlideShare
3,038
Embed Views
73

Actions

Likes
8
Downloads
31
Comments
0

4 Embeds 73

http://etechlib.wordpress.com 56
http://www.carlboettiger.info 13
http://twitter.com 3
http://translate.googleusercontent.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/10_sharing_book_cover.pdf
  • http://chrisabraham.com/2008/07/06/wikipedia-is-accurate-citation-needed/
  • http://chrisabraham.com/2008/07/06/wikipedia-is-accurate-citation-needed/
  • Shttp://www2.imm.dtu.dk/~fn/twod/FinnAarupNielsen2007Jorck2_manipulated_bw.jpgenior researcher at DTU Informatics specializing in neuroinformatics for functional neuroimaging
  • Linked Data, note centrality of DBpedia
  • Identifier reuse and scoping a project by BBC, note use of Wikipedia “slug” in URL
  • http://chrisabraham.com/2008/07/06/wikipedia-is-accurate-citation-needed/
  • For the species in Wikipedia I asked what web site comes top of the Google search for that name. Wikipedia dominates the search ranking. There really is only one game in town. 70,000 species
  • History flow visualisation, after Jeff Atwood’s animated GIF
  • Afrotheria
  • ) 04:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • ) 04:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • 22:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • 04:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • 22:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • 05:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • 02:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • 06:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • http://twitter.com/#!/pentcheff/status/11118989946130432
  • Stewart Brand (image from Wikipedia)

Why aren't we there yet? Presentation Transcript

  • 1. Why aren’t we there yet? Rod Page
  • 2.  
  • 3. 10 predictions
  • 4. The Encyclopedia of Life will continue it's slow decline into irrelevance. …Nobody will care, as we have Wikipedia. 1
  • 5. Catalogue of Life will issue another release, complete with much fanfare. The LSIDs will continue to fail. …nobody will care. 2
  • 6. There will be much talk of integrating biodiversity data …nothing of significance in this area will happen. 3
  • 7. For most young scientists GenBank will be the dominant source of information about biodiversity. …if it hasn't been sequenced, they won't care about it. 4
  • 8. DNA barcoding by itself will become boring... 5
  • 9. Literature that is not online will cease to be read. Taxonomic groups where the literature is not online will effectively cease to be studied. 6
  • 10. The major databases will continue to be riddled with errors …databases will make no (serious) effort to fix these 7
  • 11. No major database effort will adopt wikis 8
  • 12. Data providers such as Thomson Reuters (Index of Organism Names) will continue to clutch to debilitating notions of “intellectual property” 9
  • 13. The chasm between the classifications that underlie efforts such as EOL, and phylogenetic trees being generated by systematists will grow. …Neither community will care. 10
  • 14.  
  • 15. Nobody cares
  • 16.
    • Identifiers
    • Wikis
    • Literature
    • Data
  • 17.  
  • 18. Catalogue of Life will issue another release, complete with much fanfare. The LSIDs will continue to fail. …Nobody will care. 2
  • 19. urn:lsid:catalogueoflife.org:taxon:ecaa85e8-0cc1-11e0-9fbc-0ca92ce1e3cc:col20101221 <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#&quot;xmlns:TaxonName=&quot;http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/TaxonName#&quot;xmlns:TaxonRank=&quot;http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/TaxonRank#&quot;xmlns:PublicationCitation=&quot;http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/PublicationCitation#&quot;xmlns:Common=&quot;http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Common#&quot;xmlns:Collection=&quot;http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#&quot;xmlns:Institution=&quot;http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Institution#&quot;xmlns:dc=&quot;http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/&quot;xmlns:TaxonConcept=&quot;http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/TaxonConcept#&quot;> </rdf:RDF>
  • 20. Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
  • 21. Why have DOIs?
  • 22. Link rot
  • 23. Refs
  • 24.  
  • 25.  
  • 26. Benefits of DOIs
    • Stable, reusable identifiers
    • Minimal branding
    • Someone to complain to if a DOI breaks
    • Metadata about what DOI identifies
    • Find DOI for object
    • Links between DOIs (= citation)
  • 27. users WTF?
  • 28.  
  • 29. Wikis
  • 30. The major databases will continue to be riddled with errors …databases will make no (serious) effort to fix these 7
  • 31. No major database effort will adopt wikis 8
  • 32. Why take wikis seriously?
  • 33. Wikipedia takes the scientific literature seriously
  • 34. Finn Årup Nielsen (arXiv:0705.2106v1) Australian Systematic Botany Nature Science
  • 35. Linked data (The future of the web, and always will be…)
  • 36.  
  • 37. http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/species/Komodo_dragon
  • 38. Other fields use Wikipedia
  • 39. GeneWiki Huss et al. 2008 doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060175
  • 40. Google search on gene names Huss et al. 2008 doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060175
  • 41.  
  • 42. Caveats
  • 43. Authorship
  • 44. Versions 1 2 3 4 History flow
  • 45. Afrotheria
  • 46. Controversy
  • 47.  
  • 48. Physeter catodon Physeter macrocephalus
  • 49.  
  • 50. We should follow MSW3, as it is what is used in nearly all other mammal articles on Wikipedia. UtherSRG (talk)
  • 51. Nope. The MSW3 is in error in this case. It will stay as macrocephalus . Tag! You're it. Jonas Poole (talk)
  • 52. Please stop. MSW3 is the defacto standard used in the majority of mammal articles … so MSW3 stands. - UtherSRG (talk)
  • 53. So, basically its your fucking bible? Well, I'm a man of little faith. I'll be reverting it back. You, my friend, may stop reverting it. It's quite annoying. Jonas Poole (talk)
  • 54. Yes, contradiction, because I *had* listed macrocephalus as a synonym. … So, since you say that that is acceptable, I'll restore it to be that way. - UtherSRG (talk)
  • 55. That's not what I said you fucking piece of shit. I'm reverting it back to macrocephalus asshole. Damn you fucking cunt. Jonas Poole (talk)
  • 56. Wow. Seriously consider taking a Wikivacation to cool off, man. Your heat is way above this conflict. - UtherSRG (talk)
  • 57. WikiLinks
  • 58. http://ispecies.org Text Genomics Map Images Literature Isthmohyla rivularis is a rare species of frog in the Hylidae family. It is found on along fast-moving, clear streams of the lower and pre-montane rainforest slopes in Costa Rica and western Panama, from . It is threatened by habitat loss. The species was thought to have become extinct in the late 1980s. In 2007, it was re-discovered in the Monteverde Cloud Forest of Costa Rica, and a female was spotted in 2008.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7609780.stm ...
  • 59.  
  • 60.  
  • 61. http://iphylo.org/linkout
  • 62. NCBI Wikipedia NCBI Wikipedia NCBI Wikipedia exact synonym redirect exact exact
  • 63. 53,000
  • 64.  
  • 65. ray2
  • 66. 53,000 ?
  • 67. Against Guidelines Unfortunately the newbie User:Rdmpage suggested something, that is against guidelines ... Enforce something against guidelines has no chance. Guidelines are long term used standards, that we all should respect.
  • 68. I love Wikipedia…
  • 69. … Wikipedia doesn’t love me.
  • 70. http://iphylo.org/linkout
  • 71.  
  • 72. Literature that is not online will cease to be read. Taxonomic groups where the literature is not online will effectively cease to be studied. 6
  • 73. Taxonomic exceptionalism
  • 74.  
  • 75. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., (4) 19, 147 “microcitations”
  • 76.  
  • 77. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., (4) 19, 147. Descriptions of new genera and species of New-Zealand Coleoptera - Part IV by F P Pascoe Annals and Magazine of Natural History (4) 19: 140-147 (1877)
  • 78. Bibliography of Life
  • 79. www.mendeley.com
  • 80.  
  • 81.  
  • 82.  
  • 83. BHL Europe
  • 84.  
  • 85. Information wants to be free.
  • 86. Information wants to be expensive.
  • 87. Data providers such as Thomson Reuters (Index of Organism Names) will continue to clutch to debilitating notions of “intellectual property” 9
  • 88. www.theplantlist.org
  • 89. You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work
  • 90. iphylo.org/~rpage/theplantlist
  • 91. taxonomist users
  • 92. taxonomist users
  • 93. taxonomist users
  • 94. taxonomist users
  • 95. taxonomist users
  • 96. taxonomist users