Organisms Diversity & Evolution

, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp 343–349 | Cite as

Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia of life

Forum Paper

Abstract

In a 2003 essay E. O. Wilson outlined his vision for an “encyclopaedia of life” comprising “an electronic page for each species of organism on Earth”, each page containing “the scientific name of the species, a pictorial or genomic presentation of the primary type specimen on which its name is based, and a summary of its diagnostic traits.” Although biodiversity informatics has generated numerous online resources, including some directly inspired by Wilson’s essay (e.g., iSpecies and EOL), we are still some way from the goal of having available online all relevant information about a species, such as its taxonomy, evolutionary history, genomics, morphology, ecology, and behaviour. While the biodiversity community has been developing a plethora of databases, some with overlapping goals and duplicated content, Wikipedia has been slowly growing to the point where it now has over 100,000 pages on biological taxa. My goal in this essay is to explore the idea that, largely independent of the aims of biodiversity informatics and well-funded international efforts, Wikipedia has emerged as potentially the best platform for fulfilling E. O. Wilson’s vision.

Keywords

Biodiversity informatics Encyclopaedia of life Taxonomy Wikipedia 

References

  1. Bidartondo, M. I. (2008). Preserving accuracy in GenBank. Science, 319(5870), 1616.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bizer, C., Lehmann, J., Kobilarov, G., Auer, S., Becker, C., Cyganiak, R., et al. (2009). DBpedia—A crystallization point for the Web of Data. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 7, 154–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bridge, P. D., Roberts, P. J., Spooner, B. M., & Panchal, G. (2003). On the unreliability of published DNA sequences. The New Phytologist, 160, 43–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buck, R. C., & Hull, D. L. (1966). The logical structure of the Linnaean hierarchy. Systematic Zoology, 15, 97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Garfield, E. (2001). Taxonomy is small, but it has its citation classics. Nature, 413(6852), 107.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Giles, J. (2005). Internet encyclopaedias go head to head. Nature, 438(7070), 900–901.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Gregg, J. R. (1954). The language of taxonomy: An application of symbolic logic to the study of classificatory systems. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Holthuis, L. B. (1987). The scientific name of the Sperm Whale. Marine Mammal Science, 3, 87–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hull, D. (1990). Science as a process: An evolutionary account of the social and conceptual development of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. Huss, J. W., Orozco, C., Goodale, J., Wu, C., Batalov, S., Vickers, T. J., et al. (2008). A Gene Wiki for community annotation of gene function. PLoS Biology, 6(7), e175.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Huss, J. W., Lindenbaum, P., Martone, M., Roberts, D., Pizarro, A., Valafar, F., et al. (2009). The Gene Wiki: Community intelligence applied to human gene annotation. Nucleic Acids Research, 38(Database Issue), D633–D639.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Kobilarov, G., Scott, T., Raimond, Y., Oliver, S., Sizemore, C., Smethurst, M., et al. (2009). Media meets semantic web - How the BBC uses DBpedia and linked data to make connections. In Proceedings of the 6th European Semantic Web Conference on the Semantic Web: Research and Applications (Heraklion, Crete, Greece, May 31 - June 04, 2009). Lecture Notes In Computer Science, 5554, 723–737. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-02121-3_53
  13. Krell, F. (2002). Why impact factors don’t work for taxonomy. Nature, 415(6875), 957.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Lawrence, S. (2001). Free online availability substantially increases a paper’s impact. Nature, 411(6837), 521.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Lehmann, T. (2009). Phylogeny and systematics of the Orycteropodidae (Mammalia, Tubulidentata). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 155, 649–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lehmann, T., Vignaud, P., Likius, A., Mackaye, H., & Brunet, M. (2006). A sub-complete fossil aardvark (Mammalia, Tubulidentata) from the Upper Miocene of Chad. Comptes Rendus Palevol, 5, 693–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lu, X., Kahle, B., Wang, J. Z., & Giles, C. L. (2008). A metadata generation system for scanned scientific volumes. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on digital libraries (pp. 167–176). Pittsburgh, PA, USA: ACM. doi:10.1145/1378889.1378918
  18. Nelson, G., & Platnick, N. I. (1980). Multiple branching in cladograms: Two interpretations. Systematic Zoology, 29, 86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nielsen, F. A. (2007). Scientific citations in Wikipedia. 0705.2106. http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.2106. Accessed 1 February 2010.
  20. Nielsen, F. A. (2008). Clustering of scientific citations in Wikipedia. 0805.1154. http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.1154. Accessed 1 February 2010.
  21. Page, R. D. M. (2007). TBMap: A taxonomic perspective on the phylogenetic database TreeBASE. BMC Bioinformatics, 8, 158.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Page, R. D. M. (2008). Biodiversity informatics: The challenge of linking data and the role of shared identifiers. Briefings in Bioinformatics, 9, 345–354.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Pennisi, E. (2008). DNA DATA: Proposal to ‘wikify’ GenBank meets stiff resistance. Science, 319(5870), 1598–1599.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Pickford, M. (1974). New fossil Orycteropodidae (Mammalia, Tubulidentata) from East Africa. Orycteropus minutus sp. nov. and Orycteropus chemeldoi sp. nov. Netherlands Journal of Zoology, 25, 57–88.Google Scholar
  25. Rinaldo, C. (2009). The biodiversity heritage library: Exposing the taxonomic literature. Journal of Agricultural & Food Information, 10, 259–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schevill, W. E. (1986). The international code of zoological nomenclature and a paradigm: The name Physeter catodon Linnaeus 1758. Marine Mammal Science, 2, 153–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schevill, W. E. (1987). Mr. Schevill replies. Marine Mammal Science, 3, 89–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Thomas, C. (2009). Biodiversity databases spread, prompting unification call. Science, 324(5935), 1632–1633.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Viégas, F. B., Wattenberg, M., & Dave, K. (2004). Studying cooperation and conflict between authors with history flow visualizations. In Proceedings of the 2004 conference on human factors in computing systems—CHI ‘04 (pp. 575–582). Presented at the 2004 conference, Vienna, Austria. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar
  30. Vuong, B., Lim, E., Sun, A., Le, M., & Lauw, H. W. (2008). On ranking controversies in Wikipedia: models and evaluation. In Proceedings of the international conference on web search and web data mining—WSDM ‘08 (pp. 171–182). Presented at the the international conference. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar
  31. Waldrop, M. (2008). Big data: Wikiomics. Nature, 455(7209), 22–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Werner, Y. L. (2006). The case of impact factor versus taxonomy: A proposal. Journal of Natural History, 40(21), 1285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wilson, E. (2003). The encyclopedia of life. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 18, 77–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wilson, D., & Reeder, D. M. (Eds.). (2005). Mammal species of the world: A taxonomic and geographic reference (3rd ed.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Gesellschaft für Biologische Systematik 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Faculty of Biomedical Life SciencesUniversity of GlasgowGlasgowUK

Personalised recommendations