Why aren't we there yet?
Download as PPT, PDF9 likes2,844 views
1. The document makes 10 predictions about the future of biodiversity data and information, most of which are pessimistic. It predicts databases will continue to have errors and not adopt wikis, literature not online will go unread, and data providers will cling to intellectual property notions. 2. It discusses issues with identifiers, literature access, databases having errors, lack of wiki adoption, and intellectual property claims over data. 3. The challenges discussed include identifier failures, literature paywalls, unfixed database errors, lack of collaborative tools like wikis, and restrictive intellectual property claims limiting data sharing and reuse.
Why aren't we there yet?
- 1. Why aren’t we there yet? Rod Page
- 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
- 15. Nobody cares
- 16. Identifiers Wikis Literature Data
- 18. Catalogue of Life will issue another release, complete with much fanfare. The LSIDs will continue to fail. …Nobody will care. 2
- 20. Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
- 21. Why have DOIs?
- 22. Link rot
- 23. Refs
- 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?
- 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…)
- 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
- 42. Caveats
- 43. Authorship
- 44. Versions 1 2 3 4 History flow
- 45. Afrotheria
- 46. Controversy
- 48. Physeter catodon Physeter macrocephalus
- 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 ...
- 62. NCBI Wikipedia NCBI Wikipedia NCBI Wikipedia exact synonym redirect exact exact
- 63. 53,000
- 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.
- 69. … Wikipedia doesn’t love me.
- 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
- 75. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., (4) 19, 147 “microcitations”
- 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)
- 79. www.mendeley.com
- 83. BHL Europe
- 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
- 89. You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work
- 91. taxonomist users
- 92. taxonomist users
- 93. taxonomist users
- 94. taxonomist users
- 95. taxonomist users
- 96. taxonomist users
Editor's Notes
- #30: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/10_sharing_book_cover.pdf
- #33: http://chrisabraham.com/2008/07/06/wikipedia-is-accurate-citation-needed/
- #34: http://chrisabraham.com/2008/07/06/wikipedia-is-accurate-citation-needed/
- #35: Shttp://www2.imm.dtu.dk/~fn/twod/FinnAarupNielsen2007Jorck2_manipulated_bw.jpgenior researcher at DTU Informatics specializing in neuroinformatics for functional neuroimaging
- #37: Linked Data, note centrality of DBpedia
- #38: Identifier reuse and scoping a project by BBC, note use of Wikipedia “slug” in URL
- #39: http://chrisabraham.com/2008/07/06/wikipedia-is-accurate-citation-needed/
- #42: 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
- #45: History flow visualisation, after Jeff Atwood’s animated GIF
- #46: Afrotheria
- #49: ) 04:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- #51: ) 04:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- #52: 22:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- #53: 04:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- #54: 22:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- #55: 05:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- #56: 02:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- #57: 06:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- #75: http://twitter.com/#!/pentcheff/status/11118989946130432
- #85: Stewart Brand (image from Wikipedia)