User:KimvdLinde

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Scaling down on contributing to Wikipedia

I have a hard time seeing how Wikipedia can rise above the mediocre state it is currently in. As I can spend my time better at different places—like writing scientific articles for example—I have scaled my number of contributions considerably down to emergency fixes such as an incorrect taxonomy in a featured article and other biology related emergencies.

[edit] My predictions for Wikipedia

My prediction for Wikipedia is that it becomes more and more a vehicle for POV-pushers, while the good editors and experts will leave Wikipedia disgruntled. The high degree of historical revisionism, fringe science, extreme minority viewpoints etc. makes Wikipedia already highly unreliable as an encyclopaedia. Now that the main articles have been written, Wikipedia becomes increasingly vulnerable for this.

The unreliability of Wikipedia will in the end kill it. It is waiting for an encyclopaedia written by a community of experts, using the strength of the Wikipedia model, with the knowledge of the experts, and sensible modified software that allows expert control, but the participation of many additional editors and translators. Such a model will outcompete Wikipedia in a short time, except for fancruft, vanity, non-notable companies and people, POV and historical revisionist articles.

Wikipedia is not an encyclopaedia, it is a restricted collection of verifiable but at time highly incorrect information. It was a big evolutionary step from the editorial board dominated classical encyclopaedia to the everybody-can-edit information collection of Wikipedia. But evolution does not stop, and it is waiting for the next initiative that is competitive superior over Wikipedia. It is just a matter of time. The idea is already there.

[edit] What's wrong with Wikipedia?

  • The Onion: Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years Of American Independence[1]
  • Essay of another expert editor who left wikipedia gives some good reasons, although I do not agree with every aspect of that essay.
  • Wikipedia:Expert Retention‎

[edit] NPOV

Jimbo Wales: NPOV, as I have always said, is non-negotiable [2][3]

In reality, NPOV is negotiable, and worse, NPOV depends on the POV of people.

[edit] Factual correctness

In reality, there is no single established phylogeny, but this is a sub-field that is dramatically in movement and will take some time before it gets really worked out.... In the view of Wikipedia, that is what should be presented....
  • It took more than a year to fix some completly incorrect information about genetic recombination, a major source of new genetic information. It got introduced in November 2005, and it took till January 2007 to get fixed.....
  • The type specimen of the genus Drosophila is Musca funebris. Unfortunately, someone who does not know anything about the nomenclature has changed it to Drosophila (Musca) funebris.[5] That notation is normally used to indicate a subgenus within Drosophila, but Musca is still its own genus of flies. The notation as it was, with Musca funebris was correct. Update: Now, Veropedia has copied the faulty page [6], cool, nice proof that the system is NOT working!

[edit] Babysitting

To keep pages from filing up with junk, incorrect information etc., pages have to be babysitted. I have worked with Drosophila since 1992, both on taxonomy and life-history questions.

  • D. melanogaster has a development time of 8.5 days at 25 °C.[7][8][9][10] At the moment (July 31, 2006), according to Wikipedia, it is 10 days at 25°C. [11] In reality, it is more complex, as the development time depends on food, crowding, temperature, humidity, latitudinal origin, etc...
  • Similarly, the number of Drosophila species according to Wikipedia is 2000[12], however, were are those 500 extra coming from? The most extensive database in the world on ths, TaxoDros, indicates 1450 species....[13][14]
  • Another good one, see image which has the following caption: "Drosophila pupae – male (brown) and female (white)"[15]. Hilarious, the white ones are young pupae while the brown ones are older. Colour has nothing to do with sex.
  • Ara autocthones, based on the best literature I have available. Gets changed to Ara autochthones. I ask why. Response, I read it somewhere.... Yawn

I am done babysitting, I can create the same information at my own website, and have not to babysit it. It is the subtle vandalism like this that makes Wikipedia unreliable.

[edit] Experts

Jimbo Wales: Greater involvement by scientists would lead to a "multiplier effect", says Wales. Most entries are edited by enthusiasts, and the addition of a researcher can boost article quality hugely. "Experts can help write specifics in a nuanced way," he says.[16]

A nice idea, but in practise, it does not work that way. I have seen several scientists come and go, knowing that they can spend their time better at other places. And I will now follow those scientists....

[edit] References

  1. ^ http://www.theonion.com/content/node/50902
  2. ^ Libel chill WikiEN-l
  3. ^ Articles about ourselves WikiEN-l
  4. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jaguar&diff=77560157&oldid=77553487
  5. ^ the Change
  6. ^ Drosophila entry at Veropedia
  7. ^ Ashburner, M. and J. N. Thompson (1978). The laboratory culture of Drosophila. In: The genetics and biology of Drosophila. (eds: Ashburner, M. and T. R. F. Wright) Academic Press. volume 2A: 1-81: 12°C: >50 days; 16°C: 25 idays; 18°C: 19 days; 20°C: 14.5 days; 22°C: 11 days; 25°C: 8.5 days; 28°C: 7 days; 30°C: 11days
  8. ^ van der Linde, K. 2005. Testing Drosophila life-history theory in the field: local adaptation in body size, development time and starvation resistance. Ph.D. thesis, Leiden University. (4 lines: 8.82 (m) - 8.66 (f), 8.78 (m) - 8.71 (f), 8.81 (m) - 8.48 (f), 8.66 (m) - 8.44 (f)
  9. ^ Bloomington Drosophila Stock Center at Indiana University: Basic Methods of Culturing Drosophila
  10. ^ Ashburner, M., K. G. Golic and R. S. Hawley (2005). Drosophila: A Laboratory Handbook. Cold Spring Harbor, New York, USA, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press. Relevant data at page 162-164
  11. ^ Drosophila melanogaster diff
  12. ^ Drosophila diff
  13. ^ TaxoDros
  14. ^ Markow, T. A. and P. M. O'Grady (2006). Drosophila: A guide to species identification and use. London, UK, Elsevier Inc.
  15. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Drosophila&diff=77367348&oldid=76526830
  16. ^ Nature special report
Preserved articles

Articles I contributed on and received good article status:

Articles about parrots:

Other bird articles:

Articles about Drosophilidae taxonomy:

Other articles:
This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia.
This user is female.
This user has a species named after her: Drosophila vanderlindei.
This subject matter expert in evolutionary biology supports the expert rebellion.