Add a new comment
-
-
-
Katja Schulz commented on "EOL Curators":
@Michael Wunderli: If you find a source that has information about these spiders, we can try to engage them as a content partner. They would have to be willing to release their content under a creative commons license, though. In this particular example, we could grab (i.e., copy & paste manually) the original description from BHL along with a few anatomical drawings for this species (could be uploaded through our Rapid Response LifeDesk). Unfortunately, there was no habitus drawing in the original description. For many of these species it may be difficult to get anything beyond the original description, and many may never have been illustrated fully.
-
Michael Wunderli commented on "EOL Curators":
@Katja Schulz: What i meant was that for exaple here: http://eol.org/pages/1181577/details This species for example is present but has no pictures and no detail information. That was the case with most species I found on that website. Is there something we can do about that?
-
Katja Schulz commented on "EOL Curators":
@Michael Wunderli: All the Haploclastus species are here: http://eol.org/pages/111544/overview Or is that not what you meant?
-
Katja Schulz commented on "Taxon Concept Management To Do List":
@Michael Wunderli: You said: "When you search for this species you get 5 different species pages all with the exact same name as a result." -- The first hit is the actual species page, the other ones are Toxoplasma gondii strains that we get from NCBI. I hesitate to merge all of these strains with the species concept, especially since some of them are slated for whole genome sequencing, e.g.: http://genomesonline.org/cgi-bin/GOLD/bin/GOLDCards.cgi?goldstamp=Gi10783 So at some point this strain may actually turn into something that's worth having a taxon page for.
-
Michael Wunderli commented on "EOL Curators":
Check out this website, non of the species shown there are present in the eol data. http://www.exoticfauna.com/tarantulabibliography/Haploclastus.html
-
Michael Wunderli commented on "Taxon Concept Management To Do List":
@Katja Schulz: Very interesting! Thanks for explaining.
-
Katja Schulz commented on "Taxon Concept Management To Do List":
@Michael Wunderli: Triticum durum is a subspecies of T. turgidum according to the new, molecular taxonomy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomy_of_wheat But there are still lots of sources that use the traditional taxonomy where durum is treated at the species level. I think it would be premature to force all EOL Triticum concepts to conform to the new taxonomy. I would want to do that only under the guidance of a Triticum specialist.
-
Katja Schulz commented on "Taxon Concept Management To Do List":
@Michael Wunderli: It looks like the status of Prunus insititia is controversial: http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl/record/tro-27800333 http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/29952771 You can manipulate the name shown as the title of the page by selecting the preferred classification in the Names Tab.
-
Michаel Frаnkis commented on "EOL Curators":
@Jennifer Hammock: The obvious option here is for Flickr contributors not to add pics to the EOL Flickr Group until the photo has been identified to their satisfaction. Flickr has various ID groups where unidentified organisms can be posted for identification; pics of uncertain ID could be added to those, and then added to the EOL Group later once identified.
-
Jennifer Hammock commented on "EOL Curators":
@Jason Sharp: So, Jason, supposing we create a new Admin tool and EOL admin set you as a Tructed Flickr Contributor, so by default your photos came to the platform pre-Trusted. You wouldn't need to visit them all to flip them to Trusted, BUT, if you post a flickr image or two that you would like to share with us, but you're not sure of the ID, those would come to us Trusted, like the others. It might then in a sense "be your responsibility" to visit those images and curate them to Unreviewed. I imagine that for some people this would be a lot less curation work. On the other hand, maybe it's too complicated/confusing?
-
-
Jason Sharp commented on "EOL Curators":
@Jennifer Hammock: I am a little confused on this 'follow up'.
-
-
-
Jennifer Hammock commented on "EOL Curators":
Okay, here's a followup scenario for those of you who both curate and post images via flickr: As a curator, if you had an occasional photo coming in that you weren't sure of, you *could* visit those photos yourself and mark them unreviewed. Anyone want to hazard an opinion, "sure, I'd bother to do that" or "not likely, you're lucky I have time to do one kind of activity"? Thanks!
-
Patrick Coin commented on "EOL Curators":
@Jennifer Hammock: Yes, certifying certain Flickr contributors as "pre-trusted" is a great idea. That would save huge amounts of time. Since I became a curator, for instance, I've spent quite a bit of time finding my images on EOL and trusting them. It is very tedious, especially since the delay in harvesting can be long. Certainly there should be some process to approve certain reliable contributors in this fashion. I agree that the benefit would outweigh the occasional error. (And, as others have mentioned, there are some errors anyway in already pre-trusted images from institutions--inevitable in a project of this scope.)
-
Valter Jacinto commented on "EOL Curators":
@Jason Sharp: I think flickr images should be pre-trusting to EOL. Some errors are normal... Some curators take years to curate a few images!
-
Jason Sharp commented on "EOL Curators":
@Jennifer Hammock: I know a few photographers that seem to know their stuff and continue to contribute images. I believe the time saved by 'pre-trusting' their images would outweigh the time spent fixing the occasional mistakes. It seems some of the Smithsonian photos are pre-trusted and they have some errors.
