Anybody Use Wikipedia?

[epiphyte]

I recently found out that somebody created a wikia specifically for orchids... Orchids Wiki

An orchid wikia website could eventually turn out to be a tremendously useful resource...depending on how many people contribute to it. In order to get a rough idea of the quantity of potential contributors I thought I'd create a poll to see how many people have ever edited Wikipedia in some way.

If you have never edited a wikipedia type site would you be interested in learning how?

Currently, there are only 2 people editing the Orchids Wiki website but I tested the waters by creating an article for Coelogyne nitida using a layout that was more compartmentalized than then current layout. Unfortunately, the admin who started the wikia reverted my layout back to the current layout and generalized some of the specific data that I had included.

For example, I included lowest average temperature of 35F to a highest average temperature to 66F and the admin removed my temperatures and instead wrote... "Plant grows in cool to intermediate temperatures..." I asked him what the benefit is of generalizing information when specific information is available but he hasn't responded yet.

I'm hardly interested in contributing specific data such as latitude range, temperature range, etc if the data is just going to be generalized but we'll see how flexible the admin is. But obviously, if there is an article on an orchid with missing temperature data then specifying whether it is cool, intermediate or warm growing is better than nothing.

[Vivienne]

I believe that members of Orchid Geeks have been or were working on a Orchids Wiki... Main Page - Orchid Geeks Wiki

Is this the one you are referring to?

[epiphyte]

Hmmm... when I click on that link I get logged off.

Actually though, the wiki I was referring to was this one...

http://orchids.wikia.com

[kmarch]

Originally Posted by epiphyte

I included lowest average temperature of 35F to a highest average temperature to 66F and the admin removed my temperatures and instead wrote... "Plant grows in cool to intermediate temperatures..." I asked him what the benefit is of generalizing information when specific information is available but he hasn't responded yet.

I think I know why your post was edited. Although you didn't say it in your post, it looks as though you gave the winter night-time low temperature and the daytime high temperature? If you say an orchid is "cool growing" I automatically know the ideal night-time temp is around 50-55F and the ideal daytime high temp is around 60-70F. It gives me a range of temps to work with and so it provides a little more info than what you posted.

There's a problem with Wikipedia and other Wiki sites and that is that the info posted on a topic is usually not placed there by an expert in that field and therefore are often peppered with mistakes. The bottom line is that there are other much more reliable and authoritative sources for information. For this reason I rarely use Wikipedia or other Wiki sites for orchid information and usually refer people to other sources, at least until the quality of information on these sites gets better. I'm not saying the posters are being malicious or are intentionally posting incorrect info, I'm just saying their posts are often limited to whatever knowledge they have on hand which may be incomplete or inaccurate.

[Andrew]

Had a quick look around the site. Seems to be a lot of cut and pasting from wikipedia. I'm not sure it offers anything that isn't already available (and with a more extensive contributor base) through wikipedia.

[kmarch]

I took a longer look at it and found errors. The page on Vuylstekeara was pretty messed up with its repeated use of the term "Cambria" as if it were a grex. "Cambria" is not a grex, it's a horticultural term used apparently only in Britain that generally refers to Oncidium Alliance intergeneric hybrids. It's a bit like saying "phal-type dendrobiums" but in the Wiki article it is treated as if it were a grex. This is why these types of sites are problematic. Maybe at some point in the future they'll get the factual bugs worked out. Then they'll be a good convenient resource.

[kmarch]

Oh an one more thing epi, check out Dudley Clayton's book on The Genus Coelogyne. It's pretty much the standard reference for Coel. these days. Check out his info on nitida and maybe reference it in your article.

[epiphyte]

To be clear, content wise....there's no arguing that this orchid wikia website is currently a less than useful resource. My point is that ingrained in its wikia structure is the potential to become a very great resource.

When wikipedia started there was no way it could compare to the likes of Encyclopedia Britannica. Now it's chalk full of factual information inputted by non experts who have access to expert materials. When I'm researching an orchid and discover its range extends to Mussoorie, wikipedia is the first place I look to learn more about Mussoorie.

None of us are really orchid "experts". But, most of us have access to at least a couple books written by experts. What wikia would allow us to do would be to pool together the facts from our books to create a significant body of orchid knowledge. You know how your local orchid society has such a great library? Well, think of it as creating a virtual orchid society library...except, it would be an orchid forum library.

So far there are only around 8 members of this orchid wikia and it was recently started in December of 2007. If orchidgeeks were to be the first orchid forum to take this orchid wikia by storm then we would be able to help set the standard.

That's how I see it on the "greater good" scale....but well...personally, unless all the orchid geeks were to storm this orchid wikia I'm a bit hesitant as it rubs me the wrong way to have my facts replaced with generalizations.

Originally Posted by kmarch

I think I know why your post was edited. Although you didn't say it in your post, it looks as though you gave the winter night-time low temperature and the daytime high temperature? If you say an orchid is "cool growing" I automatically know the ideal night-time temp is around 50-55F and the ideal daytime high temp is around 60-70F. It gives me a range of temps to work with and so it provides a little more info than what you posted.

Actually, perhaps I was a bit vague regarding how I selected those two temperatures. It might be easier if I use an example... say Melbourne.

If you look at that table you'll notice one row for the "Average high temperature" and one row for the "Average low temperature". Basically I pick the highest temperature in the "Average high temperature" row and the lowest temperature in the "Average low temperature" row to depict the average temperate range for an orchid. The coldest average low temperature in winter and the hottest average high temperature in summer. For Melbourne I would select 78F as the highest average temperature and 41F as the lowest average temperature. That's the same process I used to select 66F and 35F for Coelogyne nitida.

If you read that Coelogyne nitida was a cool grower and took "cool" to mean a low temperatures of 50-55F then you would probably bring your Coelogyne nitida indoors when the temperatures dipped under 50 degrees. But, if you read that the lowest average temperature for nitida was 35F then you would probably feel comfortable leaving it outdoors during your coldest nights.

Coincidently, I received the Clayton book from Kew a day after creating that article. I really like it...it's very nicely laid out and easy to reference.

[epiphyte]

Well...the admin person does seem fairly flexible and they replaced my facts...so...here's a deal for anybody who is interested...

Does anybody have any epiphytic species orchids that they would like more information on? I've got quite a decent orchid library and if any of my books discuss one of your orchids I'll create an entry for it in orchids wikia. In return, you'll create 1 new orchids wikia article on any orchid or improve an existing article.

My orchid books mainly cover orchids from Mexico, Brazil, Southern Africa, Australia, China and the Himalayas...but I also have books covering Dendrobiums, Oncidiums, Angraecoids, Laelias, Encyclias, Coelogynes, Catasetums, Cyrtopodiums and Phaeleonopsis.

Any takers?

[JLu]

Wikipedia is unlikely to overcome the problem of incorrect information. While it sounds like a nice, democratic idea...everybody pooling their knowledge...., "everybody's" (whomever that is) knowledge is not reliable.

I have to agree with Kevin and Andrew. This information is easily available from reliable sources. Don't forget that old engineering saying, " It takes twice as much information to overcome a first false conclusion, than to reach the correct conclusion in the first place". I guess you can easily quibble with the validity of the quantitative content of my quote, but the general idea is good. I've seen it happen repeatedly. Wikipedia has achieved a well deserved reputation for bad information.

[jerrymeola]

I have often mentioned in this forum that you need to know the source of the information. Conditions vary and experience varies even more. Not knowing anything about the person giving the advice or his growing conditions makes the advice for me useless.

Over the years I have become very reluctant to even accept the advice of other growers. Difficult plants will be described as easy to sell them. Growers have experience with their own plants under their own conditions.

I am constantly learning from answering questions from customers and members of the forum. It is just a fact that I never considered the question they asked. It is these questions that stop and make me think that are the best. It is too easy even for me to repeat the 'common response', which is correct in general but not all cases.

Wiki can never cover all the possibilities nor could they ever define how to recognize the differences.

You need to keep questioning yourself and never accept even your own knowledge as correct. I wish I could take back some of the advice I gave two years ago, which matched the generally accepted norm, but had to many exceptions misleading hobbyist.

[janet_a]

in general, i find wikipedia an occasionally useful jumping off place to find other information. i *never* rely on anything it says except in the most general way. (and i spend about half my working time doing research.)

i prefer my sources to be as primary as possible. but that's the problem with the interwebs--anybody can put anything they like on it. as long as we are all very selective users of info, we can find useful stuff.

[kmarch]

Originally Posted by janet_a

but that's the problem with the interwebs--anybody can put anything they like on it.

In my opinion that's only half the problem. The other half is that users (especially new orchid hobbiests) go to the web and assume that if it is on the web it must be correct which, as we know, isnt' the case at all.

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by JLu

Wikipedia has achieved a well deserved reputation for bad information.

I think the phase is 'Truth by popular vote'

[epiphyte]

Hmmm...eh...so most people aren't going to transfer the facts from their orchid books to this collaborative orchid encyclopedia because...the internet is full of bad information?

Surely people have better arguments against contributing than that? Like maybe a ninja squirrel broke into your house and stole all your orchid books. Squirrels like to eat orchids so orchid books are like their menus. Or maybe you sold all your orchid books to buy more orchids.

[JLu]

epi, I typed a big, long detailed response to your question and decided it wasn't worth the effort.

As you say:

"....so most people aren't going to transfer the facts from their orchid books to this collaborative orchid encyclopedia........"

To keep it simple and short....your suggestion is against the law.

[kmarch]

Originally Posted by epiphyte

Hmmm...eh...so most people aren't going to transfer the facts from their orchid books to this collaborative orchid encyclopedia because...the internet is full of bad information?

There are 2 questions in play here the answers of which seem to be getting intermingled/confused. The first question, the one that started the thread was: Would you use Wikipedia? People seem to be saying they would not use Wikipedia because they have lots of other much more reliable sources.

Then there seems to be another question: Would then be interested in becoming a contributor to Wikipedia? That's a very different question. I can only answer for myself: No, I would not be interested in becoming a Wikipedia contributor.

I have a modest library of approximately 20-25 orchid books in addition to several year's worth of AOS, AOC and a few other periodicals. For pervectly valid reasons (of time, copyright, and my personal priorities) I won't be transfering the content of my library to Wikipedia. Instead I will be sharing with folks here and in person, reliable sources of information found both in print and on the web.

[epiphyte]

Originally Posted by JLu

To keep it simple and short....your suggestion is against the law.

And how ironic that you were the one complaining about incorrect information. Actually, facts fall under the list of items that cannot be copyrighted.

[epiphyte]

Originally Posted by kmarch

There are 2 questions in play here the answers of which seem to be getting intermingled/confused. The first question, the one that started the thread was: Would you use Wikipedia? People seem to be saying they would not use Wikipedia because they have lots of other much more reliable sources.

Then there seems to be another question: Would then be interested in becoming a contributor to Wikipedia? That's a very different question. I can only answer for myself: No, I would not be interested in becoming a Wikipedia contributor.

Hmmm, communication is a very interesting thing. For the most I'm pretty terrible at it so I take full responsibility for the misunderstanding. Basically I was wondering how many people would be able to contribute to Orchids Wikia...which is a completely different website than wikipedia. I mentioned wikipedia because, if you can edit wikipedia than you can edit orchids wikia.

Originally Posted by kmarch