Where do we share how to ID species?

[edanko]

Wikipedia basically never has information about how to separate and identify insect species and insect groups–and even when there are descriptions, the species-level descriptions are usually vague and only describe the genus or family. I imagine the situation is pretty similar for other types of organisms. Would it be appropriate for us to add this information to Wikipedia for iNat users, or share it somewhere else?

[jgw_atx]

BugGuide, for bugs - unless there is a more specific resource for the group in question (ants, odes, etc.). My understanding is that Wikipedia explicitly does not want ID-related info (aside from general descriptions) on the wiki pages. Since iNat still does not have its own Wiki / ID resources section, somewhere offsite seems to be the only option.

[jamie-aa]

I’ve seen journal posts used for this a couple of times.

[gmontgomery]

People have been asking for this functionality on iNaturalist itself for a long time… I think you may have already found what seems to be the best answer right now (a separate website like your excellent flyguide). Wikipedia is great, but ultimately a separate community with different standards and norms, and its structure doesn’t lend itself well to ID information/species comparisons.

Personally, I think ID information not having a place to live, and not being findable, is one of the main barriers to iNaturalist’s growth, scalability, and future success, since it slows the rate at which people can learn to ID taxa, even if they want to do so. And so the ID burden continues to rest on a few users, many of whom eventually burn out… It seems that iNat staff have also identified this “ID gap” as a problem, since this is what their genAI “solution” is supposed to solve (see that long thread).

I don’t have time or know-how right now, but a long-term project I would be interested in is the creation of an updating mirror of iNat’s taxonomic backbone with editable ID info pages, in the hopes that it might eventually be incorporated into iNaturalist.

[edanko]

Have people tried doing this in the past? How hard would this be to make and what are the obstacles? I think wikipedia uses open access software that we could copy? Do we have enough tech-savvy iNat volunteers that we could find a group qualified to set it up?

[ShotShot]

You are right - the response I got from an iNat person is to add ID guides and tips to the Wikipedia page of each taxon.

[edanko]

@jgw_atx

My understanding is that Wikipedia explicitly does not want ID-related info (aside from general descriptions) on the wiki pages.

@ShotShot

the response I got from an iNat person is to add ID guides and tips to the Wikipedia page of each taxon.

It would be amazing if someone could please clarify with evidence either way-- is adding ID information to Wikipedia a real option? I suspect @jgw_atx is correct, because the lack of any ID info even on common non-insect species is otherwise very strange.

Quotes from the blog post comments:
“There are two problems with using Wikipedia as our repository for identification information: (1) Wikipedia requires its content to be cited to published sources. You can’t just go onto Wikipedia and write “The Rainforest Rocket Frog typically has a white stripe extending from the eye to the groin.” even if you are the world’s foremost expert on rocket frogs. Unless the statement is cited to a published journal article, it will probably be deleted. (2) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a field guide. You can’t add things like identification keys and schematic diagrams showing people how to ID organisms. It’s not what Wikipedia is for and such content will get removed.” - zygy

[edanko]

Another relevant comment from the blog post:

“The comments about a user driven wiki based approach seem to be something that’s really worth investigation, at worst as a parallel source of ideally high quality user generated information that the exploitative AI can use as one of its training sources. I don’t see how any the existing core wiki sites provide scope for what seems desirable to many above, yet a parallel iNat linked initiative could. Another past scheme that existed a few years ago was “Species-ID” (then on species-id.net/wiki) but now i see only parts through Archive, e.g. Wayback machine.” - sjl197

Are any of you familiar with this project and what it’s scope was? Are there any lessons to be learned?

[ShotShot]

Ask @bouteloua, they certainly have useful hints and advice on how to add proper ID material to Wikipedia pages.

[upupa-epops]

I’d never heard of it before but there’s the last archived version of the main page: Species-ID

List of species pages here, there aren’t many genera included in the list and most of their pages weren’t archived so not much information to be gleaned from there: Species page projects - Species-ID

Here’s one example I clicked on which did get archived, the page has a table of measurements and a key, but the image links are broken: Philaccolilus - Species-ID

[edanko]

Thanks – I also noticed https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/ways-to-help-improve-inaturalist-taxon-pages-through-wikipedia/2680/78

[gcwarbler]

When I put together an ID journal article, I usually follow it up by placing a link in the “More Info” section of the About tab on the species page. These are listed along with the other standard links in that section. They show up with a little iNaturalist logo. Here are a few examples that I’ve added (with screen captures):

For Common Pinkband:

For Nyctochroa basiplaga:

There are also a few journal posts by some iNatters who collect such links all together in one place, but I seem to forget to bookmark these!

[edanko]

alright, so it seems we may have two good options:

• make our own journal posts etc and link them to about pages (more flexible)
• edit Wikipedia articles (probably better for the masses)

I’m not quite convinced that these are actually good options, though. If they were good options, why do so many people still argue that iNat should make its own wiki, including earlier in this thread above?

[shamsho]

Worth noting: Observations With ID Tips

[eyekosaeder]

Journal posts have the significant drawback of not allowing (easy) photo-uploads and having a very limited layout. IMO, the best way is to create a PDF and upload it somewhere where people can access it with a link.
It’s frustrating that no place really cares for this type of information because that also makes it very hard to find.

[nancylightfoot]

Wikipedia is not great, even for birds, and they appear to be an over-supported taxon relative to many other wonderful creatures. I find the Bug Guide knowledgeable and reputable but not very user friendly. I would GREATLY appreciate links to ID guides for taxa I’m not familiar with. For birds, there is rarely reason to go beyond the Cornell Lab’s AllAboutBirds pages, but Audubon is catching up, and there are some outstanding sources for tricky IDs like HawkWatch International. For plants, I am for the most part at a loss, but I like the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center’s Native Plants of North America. I’d LOVE a resources page for plants and many other organisms (looking at you, fungi! Mosses! Lichens! Bugs! Mammals! Herps!). A problem I see is that with the exception of places like the Cornell Lab, a lot of resources come and go. BAMONA is great for lepidoptera, but it’s overrun with ads, and I fear for its future. I don’t often follow the links on iNat because I don’t find them super helpful, but they probably are for generalists. (I mostly ID what I know.) I hope such a resource comes to pass. Love Wikipedia and I do donate, but they have some work to do on wildlife photos, especially. They are always tiny and often not great.

[nancylightfoot]

This is awesome! Thank you so much!

[nancylightfoot]

OMG! That flyguide is amazing! Bookmarked. And gmontgomery, I would find great value in that project if you ever take it on.

[upupa-epops]

I don’t have any experience with editing Wikipedia, but I get the impression that it’s pretty tedious and bureaucratic, which is largely why I haven’t tried. Might be worth trying but my impression is also that you have to be editing there for a while to get the clout to influence any decisions if any other editors disagree with your edits. So maybe start with a less ambitious format of ID tips or something? I’m not sure, someone with more experience there could say better.

Journal posts are difficult to do collaboratively, and relatedly their formatting will be of varying quality and consistency between authors. They can also be difficult to find if the author isn’t regularly advertising them.

@eyekosaeder

IMO, the best way is to create a PDF and upload it somewhere where people can access it with a link.

This addresses a number of the journal issues since you can for example edit Google Slides collaboratively and then embed them in a Journal post as the slides directly or as a PDF.

But a Google Slides or PDF file saved in someone’s personal Google Drive isn’t very stable; you never know if they’ll lose interest and remove access, or if their Google account will go inactive and then Google removes the files. I have more faith in the persistence of Wikipedia or anything saved directly on the iNaturalist website.

[upupa-epops]

Wikipedia tips from other threads:

@susanhewitt

Two things I did want to say are these:

1. You can put up a simple stub which is quite useful if it contains a correctly identified image. It certainly does not have to be a full article right of the bat! Just make sure you have a couple of good references already in there.
2. Wikipedia is not a “how-to” source, so be on your guard when listing distinguishing characteristics not to say “…this is how to tell the difference between a Bull Thistle and a Creeping Thistle”.

I would also say in general, do try to get used to editing Wikipedia for a quite a while before you try tackling a new article by yourself. Also, put the article or stub together in your sandbox, so you can see how it is doing, before you put it up.

@benarmstrong

A good way to quickly note an issue you’ve spotted with a Wikipedia taxon page (if you’re not going to update the page directly, which is preferable when you can) is to add a note to its Talk page.

@susanhewitt

@bouteloua

Ken-ichi added a cool new feature to iNat taxon pages that prepopulates a little template for taxa that

Do bear in mind that you certainly don’t need to complete all of the sections before you “save” the article. It is OK for it to be incomplete, just a simple “stub” article. Just make sure you have at least one reliable reference in there, otherwise the whole thing may get deleted.

@susanhewitt

@bouteloua

it doesn’t take a ton of knowledge

You are right about that! It’s actually very easy to create an OK stub about most species. I would encourage people to try, and not be intimidated. The worst thing that can happen is that it gets taken down if it doesn’t have any reliable sources at all.

@cazort

@susanhewitt

“Original Research” means that you cannot put some facts about an organism into a Wikipedia article just because you know them to be true

I think it’s a little more subtle than this. What you’re describing would be unsourced content, which is also not allowed.

However, original research also includes cases where a person is adding their own analysis, commentary, or synthesis of ideas based on sourceable material, but beyond that which is published in reliable sources.

So for example, say there are reliable sources describing a species habitat, and then there are sources that describe how those habitats are threatened but without mentioning the original species. But there are no sources discussing that the original species being threatened due to habitat loss. In that case, synthesizing the sources could conclude this, but it would be considered original research.

In practice, you usually have to go pretty deep into the analysis before you end up butting against Wikipedia’s original research policies, but I’ve seen editors do it time and time again and I’ve even been accused (sometimes rightfully) of doing it myself.

…

I find that if you end up butting up against this policy, it’s often a sign that you have material that could be publishable somewhere else… Then, when the work is published, you can cite it!