Community Wishlist Survey 2020/Wikispecies

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Community Wishlist Survey 2020

Wikispecies
2 proposals, 9 contributors

Go-previous.svg Wikisource  •  Wikiversity Go-next.svg

The proposal phase has ended.
Come back on November 20 to vote on proposals!


Add Google's view in 3D to Wikispecies pages

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: Although we have pictures of the species/animals on Wikispecies page, it's more vivid and informative for users by viewing the species in 3d model on Wikispecies pages. View in 3d is only shown up to the users who are using the Google search engine, but for the users of Bing and Yahoo might miss it.
  • Who would benefit: The users
  • Proposed solution: Get permission from Google / Collaborate with Google. Insert the model or state the link on Wikispecies pages.
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: Jesuisici11 (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Can you give a link to such a 3D model? I've never seen one. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Jesuisici11: I have the same question as Jon above. Please provide examples, because as it is, this proposal is too unclear to proceed to voting. Thanks, MaxSem (WMF) (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Species identification features

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem:
  • Who would benefit: Readers
  • Proposed solution: A species identification tool, as a separate feature. In every page describing a particular species, a separate box can be given which gives the major/salient features which helps you identify the species when you see it. It may be given as bullet points. This will help readers confirm whether the photo they have or the animal they saw indeed belonged to that particular species.
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: Jyothimohan (talk) 03:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Automated species identification suggests that this might be out of reach of major corporations and even a moon-shot level effort by the whole of humanity. Abductive (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • iNaturalist has some machine-learning that will suggest likely IDs, but there are so may cryptic species and ones that need micrographs of spores/pollen/reproductive organs that it will never be perfect. Still a pretty good start. I don't think it is WikiSpecies role to identify species. Best we could do is point to monographs that have the information. --NessieVL (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • As a person who professionally identifies species within my field of expertise I can say it is difficult and takes a significant amount of experience and practice, it is also not equally feasible acroos species groups. I agree with the above comment that it not really in our domain either. However, we could provide links to not just monographs as suggested above but other resources that can do this. There are many discussion groups around specialized groups where people can put up photos asking for identifications. However I do not think this needs any tools just a policy decision on Wikispecies that we are willing to include it and how. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 21:36, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Same thought as Faendalimas: sounds like this just needs a policy decision on Wikispecies, not a software tool. Kaldari (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)