Opps, used wrong subject line. So here's what I said about Wikispecies. > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 13:49:36 -0400 > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Raw data of 2009 Board election ballots > > > Full disclaimer: I contribute in Wikispecies. > > First, calling a project as "zero quality project", whether it belongs to WMF > or Wikia or somewhere else, is downright assuming bad faith. Second, all of > the discussion links in your "boycott" section took place in 2005 and 2006, > clearly unable to recognize that consensus can change (and probably had > changed since those are aged discussion). Third, we have accommodated > multi-lingual requests by including vernacular names section. But you have to > recognize the fact that the entire scientific community describing new > species all communicate in English and use Linnaean taxonomy. Even if the > paper is in foreign language, the abstract would at least have an English > version. This norm has been set since 1735 (the year which Linnaeus first > published Systema Naturae). > > We often get compared between Encyclopedia of Life (EOL), so I grabbed a > correspondence with someone who shares data to both EOL and Wikispecies > (permission already granted beforehand by these 2 individuals on quoting this > email). The Zookeys, a peer-reviewed scientific journal on species, publisher > Dr. Lyubomir Penev said this to a Wikispecies editor: > > "Today I was amazed to see that your latest edit of the Haplodesmidae page > (with my Agathodesmus revision and Sergei Golovatch's Eutrichodesmus paper) > was dated 19 June, *one day* after ZooKeys published it. You may even have > beaten ZooBank, which links to ZooKeys." > > Furthermore, Dr. Penev said Encyclopedia of Life still hasn't got any details > from ZooKeys, and the Catalogue of Life is years behind. Keep in mind that > ZooKeys and EOL are partners, yet EOL has not used any data even from the > first issue of ZooKeys, which is published in July 2008. Also, keep in mind > that most images from EOL are licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA, which is unsuitable > for reuse in Commons or WMF projects. > > Finally, to dismiss any claims that Wikispecies is a zero quality project, we > have an agreed collaboration with ZooKeys, which will see hundreds of new > species images continuously being uploaded to Commons. We are already > planning another collaboration with Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae > which will grant us permission to upload their otherwise-copyrighted images > to Commons under CC-BY-SA 3.0 to illustrate articles in WMF. We also granted > special access to their pdf papers without a 2-year delay. Has any WMF > projects successfully worked out collaborations to get large quantities of > new species images in high quality and accuracy? > > Andrew > > "Fill the world with children who care and things start looking up." > > > > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Klaus Graf <klausgraf at > googlemail.com>wrote: > > > I cannot understand why WMF is unable to terminate Wikispecies which > > is a zero quality project. See > > > > http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Gnom/Wikispecies (also in English) > > > > Klaus Graf > > > > Propose it be closed at Meta then. > > -- > Alex > (User:Majorly) > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Stay on top of things, check email from other accounts! > http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9671355 > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_________________________________________________________________ Send and receive email from all of your webmail accounts. http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9671356 _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
