Talk:FishBase

FishBase reception and NPOV

If errors have been noted in FishBase by reliable sources, then inclusion is allowed per WP:NPOV. Is the citation mistaken? Were the errors noted in the citation somehow not really errors? Is there any rationale that is consistent with Wikipedia policy (rather than FishBase cheerleading) for not presenting a balanced view? Per WP:NOV, criticisms are not to be removed unless flawed. "I don't like it" is not a valid reason for removing properly sourced information. If you would like to show FishBase in a more positive light, then cite reliable sources that present more positive information, per Wikipedia policy.Math.geek3.1415926 (talk) 22:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Reply from FishBase project

The problem in your posting is not that we are not happy with mistakes (see in the page the section I am adding).

The problem is that for a page that presents an information system in general with more than 200 tables, 32,000 species, dozens of topics, hundreds of fields, and millions of records, you make prominent an issue that concerns only 5% of records (according to our own assessment of global error-content in FishBase, and you are not demonstrating that it is more than that). In particular, displaying a large graph that concerns only a small part of the information system is irrelevant. We think there that you, you are not following any Wikipedia principles. If there are mistakes in FishBase, signal to FishBase, but you must respect the fact that we may disagree with your remarks.

We were not pretending that FishBase is 100% correct. In that case, the NPOV would apply. Or we were not pretending in that page that the information you were interested in was 100% correct. In that case again, NPOV would apply.

Note that we have not removed your remark, but that we have reduced its unjustified prominence.

And again, it would be better if we could talk directly:

1. to be sure that the errors you depicted are really errors or if there is a misunderstanding from one of us, and if relevant that it is corrected in the information system because it is where it is useful for users;
2. to present the error issue in FishBase (but that is general to any Biodiversity Information System) in a fair way, which is not the case the way you are doing it.

FishBaseProject (talk) 03:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy prohibits inclusion of information that is not available in published, reliable sources. Several recent edits seem to include "inside" information: facts that may be well known to contributors to the FishBase project, but which have not been supported with in-line citations, per Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is not a venue for institutions to publish information about themselves that is not independently verifiable. Claims about FishBase error rates, or the error detection and correction process must be verifiable. See WP:Verifiability. The material from Cole-Fletcher et al. is verifiable. Material that is not verifiable can be removed.Math.geek3.1415926 (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• The publication you cite is from Nature Precedings, which describes itself as an "archive for pre-publication research and preliminary findings". New submissions "are not subjected to editorial or peer review for quality or significance"[1] This is not a "reliable source", and in view of the possibility that it might be maligning FishBase, shouldn't be used as a source at all. --Epipelagic (talk) 14:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I should also mention that use of the first person "we" is entirely inappropriate.Math.geek3.1415926 (talk) 12:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I did not use "we" in the page itself but in the discussion. If it was there, my mistake. I am just seeing that SamckBoT marked the citations to be included, which I cannot do at the moment, being travelling. So thank you to wait for the three next days that I can access to the proper documentation, and also to Internet, which is not certain anyway.

FishBaseProject (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to add that the book cited in reference is available on the web as htm and pdf from the FishBase Home page. FishBaseProject (talk) 13:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been following what has been going on at this page, and would like to make some comments about these issues:

• FishBaseProject, I think it would be helpful if you read WP:EW and WP:COI. I'm not saying that as a criticism, but as a friendly suggestion on how to better navigate the disagreement here.
• Looking back over the recent edits, here is the version of the page before the recent changes: [2]. Here is the version after FishBaseProject made some changes, which I further copyedited: [3]. MathGeek then made a partial reversion: [4]. After that, there were a bunch of reversions, and I think the page is a mess as of this time. Here is the version as of when I write this comment: [5].
• It's not clear to me that the lead image favored by MathGeek and not favored by FishBaseProject really contributes very much to the page, and it arguably is WP:SYNTH. I agree with FishBase that it should be deleted.
• We need to come to some middle ground about the Reception section. The version in the first and third diffs, above, seems to me to be WP:UNDUE in the way that it puts the criticism quote in a quote box, but I could go along with simply having the quote in plain text, and leaving it at that. MathGeek objects to the version in the second diff as not adequately reflecting criticisms, and I can agree with that. However, the lengthy version in the fourth (current) diff is clearly unacceptable.
• My preference would be to keep it simple. We should make clear that there are errors that get into the database, but a lengthy indictment and rebuttal simply does not belong here.

--Tryptofish (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The weight-length figure for Channel Catfish is not synthesis but a figure that has been published in a reliable and cited source and is an example of the errors described. The information regarding some errors in FishBase is mathematically correct. It is relevant and important for readers to be aware so that they can check figures for themselves before applying them. The statement about the presence of errors is not lengthy, and the reference provided allows readers to pursue further information if they wish.Corinne68 (talk) 02:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, the figure cannot possibly be synthesis, since all the information presented is in the source that is cited. However, I can see how it might be viewed as undue weight in the lede, so I have moved it to the reception section instead. The reception section can certainly be expanded to include more positive reviews (I added one from Nature). Some kind of picture or diagram for the lede would also be nice.Math.geek3.1415926 (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you an undisclosed COI here, Math.geek? For example, are you one of the coauthors of the non-peer reviewed article your diagram was taken from. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected about the source of that image, sorry. I've made some revisions in hopes of making it clearer. I've also boldly deleted the Accuracy section. In my opinion, the page is in reasonably encyclopedic and NPOV shape now, although there would be nothing wrong with adding more scholarly reviews. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

FishBase is a massive and hugely useful resource, which, like Wikipedia is offered to the word free of charge. For the most part, in my experience, it is pretty accurate. It is easy for anyone to submit comments and corrections about any species, and over time, it will get more accurate. Any vast database like this will contain some errors, and discussion on those errors should be kept in proportion. Math.geek is not weighing his contributions. Instead he behaves as though he wants to demolish the reputation of Fishbase. The source on errors, which is still cited four times in the article, is the same source I discussed above. It has not been "subjected to editorial or peer review for quality or significance". It is not a "reliable source". --Epipelagic (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The arXiv e-print server is operated by the Cornell University Library. Rather than require prior peer review, editorial control of content is achieved by a system making use of moderators and requiring that authors receive endorsements prior to publishing in any given subject area. The names of the moderators who have approved publication in a given subject area are available. The Cornell University Library does not prohibit peer review either, and the reference in question acknowledges three anonymous peer reviewers, and (being a government publication) was probably subject to considerable internal review prior to being approved for publication. If this, together with the qualifications of the math faculty at the United States Air Force Academy aren't good enough for you, any high-school student skilled with a graphing calculator can verify that the graphs in the paper and essential conclusions are correct. One can also perform a similar analysis with weight-length parameters added to FishBase from the Carlander 1969 and Carlander 1977 sources and confirm that the error detection process used by FishBase for weight-length parameters is flawed, and many errant parameters remain in the database.

The weight given to this reference in the current FishBase article should be balanced with other sources and reviews. It is not uncommon that the first citation added to a Wikipedia article to seem unbalanced until the state of the article improves to include 6-12 sources. However, it is inaccurate to suggest that this is the only negative review of FishBase out there or to turn what is essentially a content disagreement into a WP:COI accusation, because as any experienced Wikipedia editor should know, it can be challenging to answer a COI accusation without violating the WP:OUTING policy. The best way to reduce fishing expeditions is not to bite. It seems that the citation of this paper is quickly leading to significant improvements in the article, participation by a number of skilled and expert editors, and the addition of many valuable references. How is this a bad thing in an article that was woefully inadequate (zero independent sources) for the first eight years of its existence? The long-term prominence of a single citation is not important. The important thing is to improve the article to meet Wikipedia standards for verifiability and neutral point of view. Since a significant number of reviews include negative comments and findings, a sampling of them need to be included. I picked one that was convenient because (being a US Government publication) the figures were not under copyright and could be added to an article that is sorely lacking in illustrations.Math.geek3.1415926 (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The article, in my view, is still thoroughly unbalanced. For example, four citations dated 1997 have been added, mostly lamenting what is missing in Fishbase. Such comments are irrelevant to Fishbase in 2011. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the recent steps toward improvement of this article. The added references now span a range of dates up to the present and both acknowledge the value and limitations of FishBase. Being as accurate as possible is in the best interest of FishBase and those seeking to understand and manage the species it covers. The added references seem to be geared toward improvement of both this article and the FishBase resource. For those concerned about peer review, don’t the added references provide peer review for FishBase? Corinne68 (talk) 11:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The challenge is to present more recent information on the reception of FishBase from the available sources. A number of reviews were published in 1997, but (according to the table of sources citing FishBase at FishBase) there have been very few reviews in the last few years. Unlike every version of Windows and MS Office, I do not believe there are sufficient sources to establish the notability of every new version of FishBase. This being the case, editors are somewhat constrained by Wikipedia's verifiability policy to draw information from the available sources, even if they seem somewhat outdated. As you have done, please continue to bring better balance to the article by bringing in newer sources, where available, but I expect you might find it challenging to find recent reviews.Math.geek3.1415926 (talk) 12:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The manuscript (ms) by Cole-Fletcher et al. takes 6 species of fishes for which length-weight relationship (LWR) parameters were available in FishBase. For LWR studies taken from one author, Carlander (1969, 1977), it compared the encoded information with the source and found that all parameters were correctly encoded, but the type of length measurement was wrongly recorded in 5 cases. It also found that subspecies or diverging phenotypes had not been marked as such by the encoder.

The ms then compares multiple LWRs published for the same species and finds that extreme curves produce very different, unrealistic predictions for a length of 30 cm. The ms concludes that "Length-weight tables at FishBase.org are not generally reliable and the on-line database contains dubious parameters. Assurance of quality probably will require a systematic review with more careful and comprehensive methods than those currently employed."

The ms suggests that a new parameter L1, showing the typical length of a fish at 1 kg weight, would improve LWR and assist in detecting errors.

The ms was useful for the FishBase team, as it reported errors and made suggestions for improvements. The errors have meanwhile been fixed and a second visual tool for detection of dubious LWRs is under development.

However, as a scientific paper, the ms has to pass the usual tests:

1. Does the ms present new, relevant knowledge that is of interest to the scientific community?

An estimation of error rates in FishBase and description of methods to detect errors would satisfy this criterion.

2. Was the subject well-understood?

There are a variety of reasons for the variation in LWR parameters, reviewed in Froese (2006), which they cite but do not adopt or discuss. These include biases often caused by narrow length ranges or inclusion of early juveniles that have not yet completed metamorphosis, as well as seasonally different condition (weight per length to the power of three) of juveniles and adults. This makes it difficult to draw a line between reasonable and unreasonable LWRs. The ms is apparently unaware of these intrinsic LWR problems.

The ms assumes that the existence of doubtful LWR parameters not marked as such in FB stems from flaws in the methods applied to detect such cases. The ms cites the FishBase error detection tool, namely the log a vs b plot, and concludes that it is insufficient for the job. This conclusion could have been easily verified by the authors, by checking where extreme LWR values show up in the log a vs b plot. If done, all extreme cases show up as such, being far away from the center of an ellipsoid containing the LWR coordinates. Thus, the method is not to blame, only that it has not been applied to all LWR studies. FishBase keeps track of this: of over 9,500 studies, 335 cases have been checked, 323 have been marked as doubtful (YES), 12 have been marked as not doubtful (NO), the rest has not been checked, showing a blank entry as indication that no test has been performed.

Thus, it seems that the ms does not understand its subject well, and that its main conclusion, that the current FishBase tool is inadequate, is not backed by data.

3. Were the methods applied appropriate for the conclusions?

FishBase contains over 9,500 LWR studies for over 3,300 species extracted from over 1,200 sources. Clearly, an analysis of about 50 LWR for 6 species from one author is insufficient to make a general statement about error rates.

More importantly, there is a general rule in science, repeated explicitly in many LWR papers but ignored by the ms, that regressions such as LWRs shall not be used outside the data range used to derive them. For the six species analyzed in the ms, several of the extreme LWRs did not include length-ranges and should have been excluded from the analysis. Also, some of the stated length ranges did not include the 30 cm mark used for the proposed new method. These cases should have also been excluded from the analysis.

Consequently, the new L1 parameter proposed in the ms is only applicable to fish that reach 1 kg body weight. Thus, it is not applicable to the majority of fishes, which have a median length of about 15 cm and 30 g. Also, the authors have not realized that length at 1 kg will be very different for an eel or a box fish.

Thus, the methods applied were not appropriate to support the conclusion.

Summary: While the research question posed in the ms is of principle interest, the understanding of the subject and the applied methods were insufficient to justify the conclusions. The authors are, however, encouraged to work with the FishBase team in order to derive sound results for the research question.

As for the Wikipedia page on FishBase, the prominent display of the flawed, self-published ms seemed inappropriate, and it was therefore removed by us, with a new sentence about error rates in FishBase, with reference to the ms. We thought that was a fair reaction.

Comments on "Errors in Length-weight Parameters at FishBase.org" by Cole-Fletcher et al., self- published. Rainer Froese, FishBase Coordinator, 12 July 2011 -- FishBaseProject (talk) 06:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Rainer, what has happened here is deeply embarrassing. I agree FishBase has been seriously done over by a small group of non-notable researchers who found a few errors in FishBase, and rather than putting the matter in proportion, seem to want to crucify FishBase. However, you are playing a game here, the Wikipedia game, and you must play by its rules. If FishBase wants to put the Cole-Fletcher article into perspective, it is waste of time doing it on a talk page on Wikipedia. In Wikipedia, the content in articles should be supported by verifiability. We can't report on a talk page discussion. You are presenting here as the Wikipedia editor "FishBaseProject", and even if you are Rainer Froese you have no more clout here than any another editor on Wikipedia. When it comes to what is added to articles, Wikipedia doesn't care what you think, or I think, or what Cole-Fletcher thinks or what Math.geek thinks. All that matters there is what is in the reliable sources. The article in question, as you point out, is self published. It was not published in a reputable journal, it has not been formally peer reviewed, the authors are not notable, and no citations for it show up on Google Scholar. So it is at the far perimeter of what could be regarded as a "reliable source" for Wikipedia, and if it is controversial then it probably should not be cited at all. If FishBase thinks the Cole-Fletcher article warrants a rebuttal, I suppose you could publish it on your web site, since that would be at least as much of a "reliable source" as the article itself. If Wikipedia is going to cite the article, then it should be able to cite a rebuttal from your website, particularly if you put your name to it. Publishing in a reputable journal would be overkill.

The Cole-Fletcher article concludes eccentrically with the statement:

Finally, these errors bring to mind the question, “Who is responsible for errors in scientific reporting?” When an error in an original source is repeated by subsequent sources citing the original, does the sole responsibility for all subsequent citations rest with the original source, or should subsequent authors and editors bear some responsibility for due diligence in error detection prior to repeating previously published information?

This smells of moral crusade with FishBase as perpetrator. The authors seem to be suggesting it is not enough for FishBase to report on reliable sources, but they should go to extraordinary lengths to ensure that what is published in "reliable sources" is actually true. What a task! Imagine where that would leave Wikipedia! It would all become original research, and we'd be wiped out overnight. Beyond that, the whole structure of peer reviewed science would collapse.

It would help if FishBase and anyone else can find a way of making sure there are more relevant and reliable sources about FishBase, both supportive and critical, that are accessible, preferably online as pdfs. Wikipedia reports on reliable sources, and the lack of straightforward and accessible relevant sources about FishBase is making this a very difficult task. If the appropriate reliable sources are accessible online, I undertake to make sure the FishBase article faithfully reflects them. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break

I agree with what Epipelagic says about Wikipedia policy. In the mean time, is the current version of the section of the page acceptably within WP:NPOV? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedianers, you are perfectly right in pointing out that I do not understand the Wikipedia rules and procedures. I was hoping for the self-correcting mechanism of Wikipedia to kick in and remove the inappropriate criticism of FishBase, because, as you say, it did not come from a reliable source. That has not happened, and our newcomer attempts to fix the page ourselves, in what we thought was a fair manner, pointing out the presence of errors in FishBase and leaving a reference to the flawed paper, set an avalanche in motion that we obviously were unable to handle.

There are several reliable sources about FishBase that I can point to:

1) A description of how bugs and errors were handled for the 2000 release of FishBase on CD-ROMs. This is published in the FishBase book and an online link is available here: ::::::http://www.fishbase.org/manual/English/fishbasebugs_blanks_and_errors.htm

We are in the process of updating these online chapters as stand-alone publications, but that will probably take some time.

2) FishBase has over 1,000 citations in the primary literature, including several citations in Nature and Science. There are quite a number of primary literature papers that could not have been written without FishBase. The list of all citations that we are aware of, including gray literature, is available at http://www.fishbase.org/References/FBRefList.php. Look at citations after 2000 to get a better idea of scientific recognition.

3) A search in Google Scholar brings over 7000 citations of FishBase.

4) There is a publication by myself about The Science in FishBase, ::::::http://www.fishbase.de/rfroese/Christensen_Maclean_Ch_4.pdf

5) Kostas Stergiou has done a citation analysis of FishBase, I will ask him to make that available.

Hope this helps. --Rainer FishBaseProject (talk) 02:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

A search in Google Scholar brings over 7000 citations of FishBase.

— FishBaseProject

I think you mean "over 1700." Math.geek3.1415926 (talk) 11:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Rainer is correct. A casual look at Google Scholar shows, at the time of this posting, 7,730 articles referring to FishBase (look at the top right of the page). --Epipelagic (talk) 11:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I expurgate claims like that on sight, with or without a 'cite': Remove OR: "Google Scholar search shows over 1700 citations. However, a…", it was restored with the comment Umm... oh well, better cite the citation count. Google is a tool, not a source of facts. I'm removing it again. BTW, has anybody bothered to verify the claim that an account is editing on behalf of FishBase. cygnis insignis 16:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Although WP:COI is important, so is WP:BITE, OK? Let's keep the discussion calm if we can. Rainer: I'm not convinced that we need so much lengthy information. It seems to me that the page is reasonably balanced as it is now—does anyone object to the balance on the page currently? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

What is the relevance of BITE? Are you suggesting that a request for verification is motivated by anything other than ensuring the workers at that site are not misrepresented. If they are insulted, rather than welcoming the chance to verify this, then it should be pointed out that users have created mischief with bogus credentials. cygnis insignis 21:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

BITE seems an accurate description of your behaviour here, Cygnis insignis, as well as Math.geek's. I was wondering why you are behaving in this manner. Is it because of this exchange? The bogus information you gave there was easily refuted by Google Scholar; is that why you have come here and are so down on my edit about Google Scholar? Anyway, I understand that Google Scholar citation counts are only an indication, and not as precise as specialist citation count services that are available only on subscription. Still, they are reasonable indications. You claim you "expurgate claims like that on sight", so you must feel very strongly and very surely about eliminating references to Google Scholar. Can you please point me to the Wikipedia guidelines which support your position?

An editor has also tagged the article for a potential COI. The editor didn't say who he was referring to. I took it that he was referring to MathGeek, who seems to have implicitly indicated above that he does have a COI. However, Cygnis insignis seems to think he is referring to Rainer. I am satisfied that Rainer is who he says he is; the nature of the information he has supplied is entirely consistent with his claim to be who is. But if you have some rational grounds for believing otherwise, Cygnis insignis, then it up to you to "verify the claim", rather than expecting other people to do the work for you, and verify something we don't feel the need to verify.

Finally Tryptofish, I am surprised you feel the article is reasonably balanced, and invite you to carefully reread both the article and the exchanges above. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Epipelagic, on reconsidering, I agree with you entirely. Thank you. When I made that comment, I was primarily concerned with getting other editors to focus more on article content, and less on peripheral matters. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Some comments on the article

Hi,

I noticed that there seems to be quite some discussion over this article. I've skimmed through the omments and now had a read through the article. I thought I'd try and give some comments from an outsider who has been involved in editing a number of biological database articles. These comments are in the spirit of making the article better.

Although I agree that it is good to give both sides of a controversy it does seem to me that in this case what is written both for and against is seriously detracting from the article. I would certainly remove any mention of it from the lead section, it just doesn't seem an appropriate weight. The overview section contains very fine detail about the history of the project, which is of little interest to readers and should be deleted or seriously reduced in my opinion. Also the section on reception is of little interest and should be deleted or given much less prominence. The article could benefit from more information about what data FishBase contains. Perhaps an image showing what an entry in the database looks like would provide some eye candy.

In terms of Wikipedia user names the user name FishBase Project suggests that multiple editors may use the account. Under Wikipedia rules each account should only be used by a single person, so I think that it would be best to not use that account in future. I haven't really followed the discussion carefully, but if the account User:Epipelagic is used by the same person, that that would be the preferred account to use. Best of luck with improving the article. It looks like FishBase deserves a good article. Alexbateman (talk) 01:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Good heavens Alexbateman, did I read that right, are you really suggesting FishBase Project is my sock! Or did you mean that really I am Math.geek? This is becoming a skit out of Monty Python! (Note in passing, I have never once denied the possibility I am a sock of Tryptofish (possibly I am a sock of Alexbateman (this needs further investigation by Cygnis insignis))) --Epipelagic (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I should have kept the last comment off the article discussion page. It is not relevant for improving the article. Apologies for any offense caused to any user.Alexbateman (talk) 07:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

No offense taken:). I agree with what you say, and in line with your suggestions, I have removed the section on reception, including the many comments that were made 14 years ago when FishBase was first launched and have no relevance to today. The trouble is that despite the prominence of FishBase, very little commentary has been written about it in a form that can be used here. Anyway, I'm looking through what there is, and will rewrite the overview section based on that. There are some marvelous images about the kinds of data structure FishBase offers, but as far as I know they are under copyright. Unless someone comes to the rescue with appropriate material, I guess the article will just have to settle for being little more than a stub. --Epipelagic (talk) 15:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Monty Python, and how! Let me state for the record that Epipelagic has never been anywhere near to my feet! You know, I edit in a lot of areas where there is a lot of controversy (religion and irreligion, animal rights, controversies about science....), but I always figured that articles about fish would be a nice, quiet corner of Wikipedia. Shows what I know. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Tryptofish. I've been feeling lonely here (actually lonely most places I've been editing recently). Editors generally seem to think marine life is a quiet safe haven to edit in. But you'd be amazed at what happens when you start mixing recreational with commercial fishermen, state employed fishery scientists with academic ones, business economists and fishery managers on a percentage and Alabama redneck Jo who land fishes sharks with Sea Shepherd or Peta or other animal activists and conservationists. Maybe not quite as volatile as mixing Israel with Palestine, but sometimes I think climate change people have it easy. But the problem with this article wasn't to do with any of those things. It was because information providers generally have little in the form of reliable sources written about them, and it leaves the article vulnerable to editors who want to push personal agendas or just bulldoze. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Final answer from FishBaseProject

Dear Epipelagic, Tryptofish, Alexbateman, and others,

Thanks for your help but we just want to give up this not useful thread with math.geek, it takes too much of our time to try to have a fair view since he continues to restore his version of the page, and refuse to discuss, although you tried as well very hard to make his remarks in better proportions in the page.

So as we presume that there is no way to prevent a FishBase page in Wikipedia, we would just like to indicate in the page that the FishBase Consortium does not agree with the content of the page as currently exposed, and as suggested, write something in our own website about the wikipedia page. Is there a formal way to do that?

Also sorry for using "we" and the same account FishBaseProject, it is simply because FishBase is a collaborative project, and that in the summer, we need to be interchangeable when one of us is away, and also because we had no personal will to participate to the Wikipedia FishBase page (hence no will to have personal accounts).

We understand that it is not the place to promote at any cost our own project (it is not someone from FishBase who created the page), but I think you understood well that it is not possible to let one individual aggressing our project without replying in our own name, it is something possible in newspaper usually, not in Wikipedia, ok.

As we were not familiar with Wikipedia rules, we realize now that it is not possible for us to reply in a sensible way showing who we are, so again, we just want to give up. We just hope that we can state that the FishBase Consortium does not agree.

Regards. FishBaseProject (talk) 14:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is very sad. Wikipedia had such promise, and seemed such an important project, but increasingly now it is crumbling into mean abysses. The content editors who mattered have largely given up and gone. --Epipelagic (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Just for my own information, when I checked a couple of hours ago, this was the version of 7th July and when I had finished my message above, it was back your version modified by MikeWazowski. I am a bit confused, since there was nothing in the history as rollback. --FishBaseProject (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by that. --Epipelagic (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, several of the editors who have been involved here should be ashamed of themselves. FishBaseProject never attempted to deceive other editors about COI. Wikipedia should, of course, be vigilant about COI and deception, but Wikipedia also benefits from having editors who are experts, and there's a difference. I stand by what I said earlier about BITE.

Anyway, I agree with Epipelagic about deleting that "response" section. This article is an encyclopedia article, not a debate, and we didn't need it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

SCIENTIFIC IMPACT OF FISHBASE: A Citation Analysis

Konstantinos I. Stergiou and Athanassios C. Tsikliras

Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, School of Biology, Department of Zoology

UP Box 134, 54 124 Thessaloniki, Greece; Email: kstergio@bio.auth.gr

ABSTRACT

Since its creation in the late 1980s FishBase has evolved into a highly dynamic and versatile ecological tool. A citation analysis based on Scopus, mainly for citations in journals, and Google Books, for citations in books, revealed that it has penetrated into the primary aquatic and general literature, review literature, and aquatic and general books and textbooks. With a cumulative number of citations of 653 during 1995-2006, it belongs to the 0.11 % of the highly-cited items published during 1900-2005, irrespective of discipline.

Full paper in: http://ichthyology.bio.auth.gr/files/tsikliras/d/d3.pdf

FishBaseProject (talk) 03:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for that source, though I had already found it and cited it in the lead. There are a number of new articles that need to be written first to provide a background for the FishBase article. So I am currently in the process of writing Rainer Froese, Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, Chinese Academy of Fishery Sciences, LarvalBase and SeaLifeBase. Then I will finish redeveloping the FishBase article and rewrite AquaMaps. It would be a great help if you could make available photos, images and logos appropriate to these articles, as well make available on the web pdfs of appropriate articles that cannot currently be directly accessed on the web.

Strictly, you should not be operating an account with the name of an organisation or project. There should be little problem if you just communicate on talk pages as "FishBaseProject", but please don't directly edit any more articles from that account. By all means start up a new account for your personal use if you want to directly edit articles, but where you have a COI you should confine your contributions to talk (discussion) page. Thanks again. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It is clear that FishBase is widely used. However the following statement used in the lead and infobox needs qualification: "It is the largest and most extensively accessed biological information system on the web." FishBase will be dwarfed in terms of data content by comparison to sequence databases held at NCBI (Genbank) and EBI (European Nucleotide Archive). Furthermore I would be very surprised if it was more accessed that online resources such as Pubmed which has something like 20 accesses per second. My suggestion would be to tone down the language to, ""It is a large and extensively accessed biological information system available on the web." Alexbateman (talk) 11:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that, and will make that change. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Done, but on second thought, maybe it's the largest with respect to, specifically, information about fin fish, or something like that. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes it could well be, but the citation doesn't really make that clear. I'll also change the infobox occurence of this statement.Alexbateman (talk) 11:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on FishBase. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111008223552/http://ichthyology.bio.auth.gr/files/tsikliras/d/d3.pdf to http://ichthyology.bio.auth.gr/files/tsikliras/d/d3.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707015410/http://www.ifm-geomar.de/index.php?L=1 to http://www.ifm-geomar.de/index.php?L=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120327195836/http://ichthyology.bio.auth.gr/index.php?q=fishbase%2Fauth to http://ichthyology.bio.auth.gr/index.php?q=fishbase%2Fauth
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.cta.int/en/content/download/513/2433/version/1/file/FishBase-Nauen.EN.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120217032015/http://www.seaaroundus.org/researcher/dpauly/PDF/2009/Books%26Chapters/FishBaseSeaLifeBaseAndDatabaseDrivenEcosystemModeling.pdf to http://www.seaaroundus.org/researcher/dpauly/PDF/2009/Books%26Chapters/FishBaseSeaLifeBaseAndDatabaseDrivenEcosystemModeling.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120217030630/http://www.seaaroundus.org/researcher/dpauly/PDF/1997/OtherItems/TheScienceInFishBase.pdf to http://www.seaaroundus.org/researcher/dpauly/PDF/1997/OtherItems/TheScienceInFishBase.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://travel-net-24.com/norwegen/fishbase%20eu.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.recibio.net/ficheros/AmsterdamWorkshop/RainerFroese.ppt
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111008223749/http://ichthyology.bio.auth.gr/files/stergiou/Theta/Theta44.pdf to http://ichthyology.bio.auth.gr/files/stergiou/Theta/Theta44.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120328012226/http://www.cafs.ac.cn/english/news-0.html to http://www.cafs.ac.cn/english/news-0.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927161450/http://64.95.130.5/Fish_on_Line.htm to http://64.95.130.5/Fish_on_Line.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)