Where do we share how to ID species?

[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!