Jump to content


Photos for wikipedia?


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_EricaWieser_*

Guest_EricaWieser_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 January 2012 - 01:29 PM

I am trying to update some webpages about fish online to include information about native fish. So far I've make a wikipedia page about Elassoma gilberti (http://en.wikipedia....t_pygmy_sunfish ) and have added Elassoma to wikipedia's list of freshwater aquarium fish species (http://en.wikipedia....s#Pygmy_sunfish ). But I'm limited because wikipedia will only let me link to images that are hosted by wikimedia commons (AKA uploaded to wikipedia). So there aren't any images for the rest of the Elassoma family, since I haven't taken any photos myself. I am about to make a sunfish section for the list of freshwater aquarium fish, but with the only image of an orange spotted sunfish being this one, http://en.wikipedia....spottednctc.png I don't imagine that it's going to be very exciting.

Does anyone have any images that they'd like to upload to wikipedia? It would help the online presence of native fish, so maybe more people would find out about them. It makes me sad to see a 'complete' list of freshwater fish without any sunfish on it.

Edited by EricaWieser, 03 January 2012 - 02:03 PM.


#2 Michael Wolfe

Michael Wolfe
  • Board of Directors
  • North Georgia, Oconee River Drainage

Posted 03 January 2012 - 06:49 PM

This is a great example of the pitfalls of wikipedia.

First it does not claim to be a complete list (quite the opposite in fact according to the first line).

Second, please do not list E. okatie or E. boehlkei as potential aquarium fish. As far as I know these populations are not protected, but they are also not common aquarium fish... and likely should not be pursued as such.

Third, my E. okefenokee would be surprised to find out that they were not supposed to be eating flakes all this time.

And that is not even mentioning the other disinformation on this page alone, like listing gar as getting to be up to 118 inches and then saying they are an easy/intermediate fish to care for... really? I could go on, but I won't waste anyone's time... wikipedia is a toy, not a tool and should be treated as such.
Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing. - Benjamin Franklin

#3 Guest_EricaWieser_*

Guest_EricaWieser_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 January 2012 - 07:07 PM

please do not list E. okatie or E. boehlkei as potential aquarium fish. As far as I know these populations are not protected, but they are also not common aquarium fish... and likely should not be pursued as such.

Okay, removed. I had only included them because they're small enough to put in a tank. I didn't think about them being threatened.

Third, my E. okefenokee would be surprised to find out that they were not supposed to be eating flakes all this time.

Lucky! My gilberti refused to eat flake :( I'll update the entry on okefenokee. How did you wean yours onto flake food?

And that is not even mentioning the other disinformation on this page alone, like listing gar as getting to be up to 118 inches and then saying they are an easy/intermediate fish to care for... really? I could go on, but I won't waste anyone's time... wikipedia is a toy, not a tool and should be treated as such.

I agree, there are a lot of problems with that page. That's why I was trying to fix it. I was hoping other people could work to fix it too, to stop the inaccuracy. I know nothing about gar, so if that piece were to be corrected it would have to be done by someone who has experience with them.

Edited by EricaWieser, 03 January 2012 - 07:09 PM.


#4 Michael Wolfe

Michael Wolfe
  • Board of Directors
  • North Georgia, Oconee River Drainage

Posted 03 January 2012 - 07:53 PM

Okay, removed. I had only included them because they're small enough to put in a tank. I didn't think about them being threatened.

That is exactly the point about wikipedia... it's too easy for people to put stuff up... you had good intentions, but ... I'm sure that others had good intentions as well... but that doesn't make the data accurate.

Lucky! My gilberti refused to eat flake :( I'll update the entry on okefenokee. How did you wean yours onto flake food?

Offered high quality earthworm flakes at the same time as the frozen food they liked. As you have seen, they eventually began to realize you are the 'food bringer'. Then offer the flake alone. A tank full of fish will compete for it. And they have already 'tasted' it some before. And it was good flake so they could 'taste' the nutrition. And I had to make sure it was the right size, large flakes were ignored, as was dust... but mouth sized bites that tasted like food were not spit out.

I know nothing about gar, so if that piece were to be corrected it would have to be done by someone who has experience with them.

Or maybe not, you didn't have experience with the other two Elassoma species. Anyone could say anything about gar that they wanted to. But I will stop harping on wikipedia. Some of the information is probably right (or at least mostly right)... but how do you know when it is and when it isn't? When I want good information about native fish, I will come here
Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing. - Benjamin Franklin

#5 Guest_EricaWieser_*

Guest_EricaWieser_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 January 2012 - 01:07 AM

All I'm asking for is a nice photo of Lepomis humilis, the orangespotted sunfish, to be uploaded to the wikipedia gallery ('wikimedia commons'). If anyone has a nice photo that they wouldn't mind turning over to common share license, I'd appreciate it. Here is the link to the page: http://en.wikipedia....spotted_sunfish

Edited by EricaWieser, 04 January 2012 - 01:08 AM.


#6 Guest_ashtonmj_*

Guest_ashtonmj_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 January 2012 - 08:04 AM

Isn't this why YEARS ago a wiki was made available on the forum... that went no where because the people that called for it promptly left instead of stepping up?

#7 Guest_MichiJim_*

Guest_MichiJim_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 January 2012 - 02:00 PM

I find wikipedia useful for quick background check on popular culture items, not scientific information.

I just read the orange-spotted sunfish (Lepomis humilis) page, and I can't say I agree with too much of the information on it. It lists fishbase as its reference, but the information on the wikipedia page does not match what fishbase contains. It has been edited many times by who knows whom. The drawing is nice. It should be described as a breeding male, but is no more misleading than the written description that someone entered because they felt the drawing was misleading.

I have only been keeping orange-spotted sunfish for a year and a half so I am in no way an expert on this species, just that my experience differs from wikipedia's information. That is why I joined NANFA. Just say something off-base in the forum and see how quickly you are corrected. And I say that with respect to everyone on here. I learn something pretty much every time I log in.

The problem with wikipedia is it is not peer-reviewed. Maybe its correct, maybe not. But there is no way to ensure that even if its made correct, it will stay that way.

I agree with Erica that encouraging interest in native fish is good, but we should do so by encouraging membership in NANFA, not trying to edit an unstable information source. Wikipedia is great for some things, but not all.

#8 Guest_nativeplanter_*

Guest_nativeplanter_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 January 2012 - 02:09 PM

I agree with Jim. If you look at Wikipedia's guideline for usable sources, it says that articles should cite all facts that might be disputed (preferably with in-line citation), using only published sources. It specifically says that original thought or first-hand info is not permitted.

Erica, quite some time ago, there was interest in a NANFA-pedia, but it never took off. Would you perhaps be interested in creating pages for that instead? These would have the opportunity to be reviewed by people who are very familiar with the species in question, and first-hand information could be used.

#9 Guest_EricaWieser_*

Guest_EricaWieser_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 January 2012 - 02:13 PM

Erica, quite some time ago, there was interest in a NANFA-pedia, but it never took off. Would you perhaps be interested in creating pages for that instead? These would have the opportunity to be reviewed by people who are very familiar with the species in question, and first-hand information could be used.

Sure. I should just say that my only qualification for creating webpages is being bored on the internet and wanting the information out there. I'm not a professional webdesigner, and my knowledge of fish is limited to a very select number of species. But as long as other people are providing the information and basic web hosting, I could put it all together.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users