Entomology and Russian Wikipedia

IMHO, it's easier and more useful to learn English. Well, no one canceled electronic translators.

Yes, and the mentioned sites exist on the web on a par with Wikikakia. The same lepidoptera.ru as far as I know it exists in two languages: Russian and English. What prevents you from working with sites directly? Why do I need to clone?

Need-need. Wikipedia is now the main source of knowledge for ordinary people.
The first place a person will go is to Wikipedia.
Professional websites are a reliable and authoritative source of information for Wikipedia. A Wiki differs from them in combining information.
Otherwise, we needed information on ecdysons: in the chemical encyclopedia only from the chemical point of view (formulas and structures), in the biological one - only from the biochemical one, in entomologists - only where it is produced and how it works. And in general, only certain aspects are considered in the articles. Maybe, of course, in some textbooks there are, but they are clearly not freely available-from-the-first-link-of-Google. While you're looking for how much time you'll lose. And if you search in English, you'll lose even more time.
I had to write what I needed myself. And there is not enough criticism. Mistakes in Wikipedia run the risk of being replicated all over the Internet.

If the owners of Wikipedia and any other sites do not want to pay authors for their work, then no one who respects their work, and even more so a very busy person, will write there. Everything I've seen on lepidopteran sites is pure pop, often overloaded with not even school, but kindergarten information, and at best 10 years behind the current level of knowledge.

Everything I've seen on lepidopteran websites is pure pop

In my opinion, there is no need to be indignant, perplexed, or show any similar reactions. Wikipedia is the ultimate pop star. And the level of articles in it corresponds to the level of their authors. We must not forget that this is just:

... a source of knowledge for ordinary people.

At least in the wiki, with all the backwardness and superficiality of the information, there are much fewer blunders that deserve to be placed in the category of this forum "Incorrect funny definitions of insects in the literature and the web "(although they do occur). In general, for children who do not seek to become biologists, and for "ordinary" people who are far from biology, wiki plays a positive role.

This post was edited by Dmitrich - 19.01.2013 17: 08

  
I had to write what I needed myself.

What a misery!!! did not ride "ctrl+c" "ctrl+v" I had to search for it myself, read it, think about it and choose information - how I feel sorry for you and that the bank of abstracts is empty? try typing in" wiki " - "library", "reading room"....maybe there are at least pictures of these mysterious places

It also seems to me that you should not look down on the Russian-language Wikipedia.

But the fact that it is necessary to share your knowledge, and even for free, is a well-worn rule of the whole story.

In short, it is better to start reading in German, traditionally in entomology (not always, but often) it is there that the data is more complete than in English, and if you have something to say yourself, then (do not hesitate) do not be lazy to write in Russian.

This post was edited by amara - 19.01.2013 12: 54

I mean, I wrote a Wiki article on my own. Including the "Copy-paste" method. It turned out to be a very useful thing. Especially when the laptop with all the lectures was suddenly covered at the field school. The unread part ended up in Wikipedia, so the lecture was restored using the same Copy-paste method.
The abstract bank is inconvenient. There are no links to reputable sources.
I'll go to the library when I need professional details. I don't quite understand why I (and other people) should spend time solidly excavating well-known information (=information that is considered well-known by professionals) when this information can be found quickly on Wikipedia.
I assure you, I have a long practice of sitting in libraries, writing out information from dozens of paper books on leaves, and carefully writing essays on paper in a beautiful rounded handwriting. But I'm afraid that scientific and technological progress and my own development have taken some steps forward since then, and spending time searching in ten places when everything can be found in one place is considered an outdated system. The saved time can be spent searching for little-known information and working in your specialty.

This post was edited by vtosha - 19.01.2013 14: 29

I don't quite understand why I (and other people) should spend time solidly excavating well-known information (=information that is considered well-known by professionals)

And why should other people search and organize the information you need for you?

This post was edited by Bad Den - 19.01.2013 14: 41

What a misery!!! did not ride "ctrl+c" "ctrl+v" I had to search for it myself, read it, think about it and choose information - how I feel sorry for you and that the bank of abstracts is empty? try typing in" wiki " - "library", "reading room"....maybe there are at least pictures of these mysterious places

Don't be rude, AGG, vtorshe...
Life is often not what it seems at first glance...

And why should other people search and organize the information you need for you?

An Arabic proverb says ," Because I was thirsty, I dug a well from which other people can now drink."

You yourself have spent your time digitizing and uploading many of the books and articles that many people now use. And, I hope, they feel a sense of gratitude.

This post was edited by amara - 19.01.2013 15: 47

  

I expressed my opinion on this issue quite concisely and, I hope, clearly by clicking the "spam" button in the title post. if you have the need, time and opportunity, then write anything, however and wherever you want-good luck.

PS the creators of "wiki" never meant that the content of this resource will be made by specialists. the basic principle of construction and content, due to which it has acquired such forms and scales, is " OBS " = "one woman said"

pps if a person comes to me with any request (to explain/clarify, etc. ) and refers to the" wiki", then I give him a link to a more" realistic "resource, if the same person comes to me a second time, with the words "and in the" wiki "it says xxxxxx" then our communication is terminated unilaterally. call me whatever you want, but Wiki isn't even a picture book for a blind child. a person who does not know, such information can completely misinform.

my opinion is that this topic should be initially "without discussion", so as not to feed trolls and not breed flood.

let the seeker find out if the wiki doesn't "help" (c)

This post was edited by AGG - 21.01.2013 15: 20

Don't be rude, AGG, vtorshe...
Life is often not what it seems at first glance...

Dear Elena, it wasn't even in my mind to be rude to anyone. This can be seen from my post - it is not edited, so I did not erase or correct anything there. Well, if there is a drop of sarcasm, it is solely to maintain tone and because of their own nature.
If I have offended anyone, please forgive me most humbly
Unlike you, the author of the title post did not want to remain unknown, but generally inaccessible, this is to the question " Anonymous....". Of course, I have 2 versions of the origin of this, but I think we'll chew and see.

PS and what does "vtorshe" mean ? sorry, poor mind

This post was edited by AGG-19.01.2013 16: 28

Apparently, this is for me. However, my original text was indeed written somewhat ambiguously. It's not worth discussing, I'm not offended, but I'd better get back to discussing the value of Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is not written according to the OBS principle. Or rather, it can begin with this. However, in order for an article to be saved, it requires support from reputable sources (such as articles, textbooks, and monographs). If the article contains them, will you trust Wikipedia less than the original sources?
Example: microRNA databases link to Wikipedia, which provides information on individual microRNAs. This is no longer an OBS, but a convenient, easily accessible and free scientific tool.

"Why should other people search for and organize the information you need for you?"
can answer a lot. For example, that there is no due category. Or, say, to save your own and others ' time. I search for and organize the information I need, upload it to Wikipedia so that no one else will have to repeat this work, and someone else will be able to search for and structure other information that they will post - and I may need it one day.

This post was edited by vtosha - 19.01.2013 17: 51

For the sake of justice, I will note already...

Wikipedia is now the main source of knowledge for ordinary people.

No, not the main one.

The first place a person will go is to Wikipedia.

And that's not true either.

Professional websites are a reliable and authoritative source of information for Wikipedia. A Wiki differs from them in combining information.

Wiki has a much more important difference: the approach to collecting information. This approach makes it a non-reliable and non-authoritative source.

It is a pity that this topic was not understood, but rather rejected. However, in defense of wiki
, I want to say that it is what the authors make it, and anyone who notices an error in it can correct it. The quality of articles depends on who fills it out and edits it. On the other hand, its content affects the general level of knowledge in a particular field . Wikipedia has no "owners", it does not use advertising and lives on the devouring of users (and certainly this topic cannot be considered spam...). By the way, as for the number of errors, it is no less accurate than "Britannica" according to a study conducted in my opinion by the journal "Nature". In addition, any article in the wiki is accompanied by links to data sources.( if someone does not like the simplicity and superficiality of the presentation of the material, let them read articles in which they are not so strong, for example, about mathematics)

From myself, I want to note that I regretted that I posted this topic, as I am very disappointed( which I will not say and so it is clear).

PS It turns out that people who consider themselves experts and laugh at blunders, do not want to prevent the spread of these blunders and increase the level of literacy of the people, in those areas in which they are strong. Let non-professionals fill out pages containing information from their area of interest using google translate . Strange...

by the way, if someone is confused that I write as a guest, then it's in vain : I am registered on Molbiol but for a number of reasons I can not log in at the moment.

Two words about the wiki: articles on mathematics in the English wiki are quite decent (of course, they are not a substitute for books and articles, but they can often give an adequate overview of the subject). Better than entomology. In Russian, everything is weaker...

2 Kharkovbut
this is what I meant by

IsItPossible, but do not despair Wikipedia rules, both the project as a whole, regardless of the language of the articles, and the Russian-speaking part.
And if I need to find out some superficial information about an object or concept, I type this word in the search engine, and if I see a link to Wikipedia, I open it first!
For example, I just need to find out what "melipony" is, literally "in a nutshell", I type a query in Google, go to
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melipona
I'll find out everything I need to know.

However, the peculiarity of wikipedia is that it can also contain a special part, something more than just a definition in a nutshell. For example, by typing specifically such queries as "scoop gamma", "filed", I found the rules there. information, and found out that in the first case, the author of the article has a biological education, although from Lithuania=0, in the second case it is similar, but from Russia. In other words, all edits can be tracked within certain limits.
An article about ants - no commentaries at all!
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ants

So everything is normal, in this case it is quite possible to say that we are talking about the reasons for the weakness of the Russian Wikipedia, you can talk about the volumes of "War and Peace"))) I think this is due to the difference in the "expression" of altruism, respectively. social and economic, and not only, environments.

Wikipedia and similar projects are probably quite important in the implementation of "information humanity"
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Информационная_эра
unlike individual specialized sites, such projects are more dynamic, subject to conservative correction(deleted fragments are preserved) , their architecture is remarkable - the presence of multilingualism is not just a "trick", but also the ability to have" reference " Wikipedia segments depending on the prevailing language layer, to compile articles based on them or check them without any problems with the author's right. And it's not always English, some article can be cool in fanzine, and according to the rules of Wikipedia, no one will have any obstacles to translate it into Russian and use its own photos!

Thus, the disadvantages of Wikipedia are free editing, and the inability to create a name for yourself, that is, writing an author's article.
However, they are compensated by the following advantages from these "disadvantages" -the lack of restrictions on the use of information, and the possibility of instant editing, that is, an outraged reader can easily correct the article in a couple of mouse clicks, specify links, specify his last name and education, and so on - that is, give his edit as much weight as he sees fit.

Just like that! Long live the era of free information!!!

PS
No, Wikipedia still rules!
I just happened to visit this page
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vespoidea

I was struck by the cladogram, I imagined everything like this))) but the fact that scolias hang at the very bottom, in the company of vespid, I was somewhat surprised..
Well, okay, I found something on this topic, it turned out to be a well-established old version, and I didn't know it, I always "placed" scolias somewhere there, to the typhids)), they are so archaic and primitive in appearance... they don't pull on the OS.
And here's what I find out.. that the scolias turn out to be-and not wasps, as it were, but almost bees, modern clasifiseyshen, however
http://www.usu.edu/pompilidweb/Phylogeny.htm
So, I read Wikipedia for the night... ~

While someone only talks about the need and uselessness of Wikipedia...

This post was edited by Coelioxys - 20.01.2013 02: 57

Pictures:

wiki2012c.JPG — (108к)


wiki2012b.JPG — (122.59к)


wiki2012a.JPG — (95.21к)



File/s:



 Grichanov_REO.pdf

size: 219.7 k
number of downloads: 514

PS It turns out that people who consider themselves experts and laugh at blunders, do not want to prevent the spread of these blunders and increase the level of literacy of the people, in those areas in which they are strong. Let non-professionals fill out pages containing information from their area of interest using google translate . Strange...

I spend a lot of time trying to correct blunders not even in pop music, but in scientific publications, ranging from short books to thick books, for example, the KMK publishing house. And I came to the conclusion that ALMOST NO ONE NEEDS THEIR MISTAKES CORRECTED. And even more so, they were voiced. They can agree with me on everything in a personal conversation, but they will still publish the nonsense that they have already put into circulation once! Moreover, a learned lady once confided to me: We were taught at Moscow State University that in no case should you admit your mistakes.
If "professional" scientists have such an attitude, then what can we say about the authors of pop music, for whom these nomenclatural marriage dealers are the main authorities?.

Still, Wikipedia has the opportunity to correct someone else's blunder, but there is no way to correct a blunder in someone else's book, article, or even website (well, sometimes it still works with sites). As for non-recognition of mistakes, this is the case, and not only among MSU graduates. I don't want to give you a name, but after talking to the author of this definition, one incorrectly defined type moved from article to article both from him and from the employees of his group.

Yes, on the subject of error correction: a Wiki has exactly the advantage - or disadvantage-that your text will be corrected, no matter how much you want to keep it in its original form.
What difference does it make whether the original author needs or doesn't need their mistakes corrected, whether they want it or not?
(Vandal edits, if anyone is afraid of them, are also quite closely monitored. If there is a conflict of sources, write about the conflict of sources. In case of a conflict of authors, the arbitration commission intervenes.)
Everything that is written in the Wiki is available for free use. And if you correct the error there, supporting the statement with sources, then the error will no longer wander "from article to article".

I sometimes edit it myself. I think that in 10 years Wikipedia will mature, become more accurate and informative. New - always "ugly duckling". Everything will be. Let's edit and add funds. Hooray for Wikipedia!

One thing is a shame: the Americans came up with it. Well, that's life...

Moreover, a learned lady once confided to me: We were taught at Moscow State University that in no case should you admit your mistakes.

This is visible for the especially gifted. We were not taught this at the MSU biofactory department.

work-work, altruists, and then some of the information will become paid, there was such information...
as well as, on the other hand, and now-moderated...

well, in our field, this is not the main problem
"if two fools vote against one wise-this is democracy" - style edits in Wikipedia, that is, if the majority has a well-established opinion-so it will be there...

about non-recognition of mistakes: I know Prof. an entomologist who messes up the taxonomy and says, let others sort it out later and write what's what... But he already understands, and others spend months of their lives on such crap...

This post was edited by CosMosk - 02/15/2013 03: 17

r
"if two fools vote against one wise man, this is democracy" - Wikipedia edit style, that is, if the majority has a well-established opinion - so it will be there...

That's right. I tried to correct an article on arcticus, where there are many inaccuracies and "nonsense". They didn't accept my version and restored the old one. They refer to the data of Yakut entomologists of the 70s of the last century. What to do?

... it seems to me or in the first photo on the right stands with cups Lastukhin Albert???

If you have supported your point of view with authoritative links, but you have removed the links, then you should write to the arbitration commission. If you only wrote it as your opinion, then you should back it up with authoritative and more up-to-date links.

This post was edited by vtosha - 02/15/2013 23: 19

They are, in general, right: what is the reason to trust more "incomprehensible amateur entomologist" than professional scientists from Yakutia? I need to write a scientific article about the biology of arcticus. I'll do that soon. Publish... Otherwise, you're nothing.

... it seems to me or in the first photo on the right stands with cups Lastukhin Albert???

Yes, that's it.
And on the left is Vladislav Krasilnikov. In Wikipedia, he is under the nickname Lasius.

In any case, in the Wiki in controversial situations, the following expressions are quite possible:
"according to so-and-so (link), the situation is as follows, because.... However, currently there is a directly opposite opinion (link), because..."