![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on List of invasive species in Colombia. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I have extreme reservations about the use of the Global Register of Introduced and Invasive Species as a source. It may be that I am using it incorrectly but it seems that there is no information about how species are determined to be invasive. It seems to be on a "trust us" basis. But there are some inherent problems. The geographic entries in the database do not match the maps supplied, so I'm not even confident that the database is error free, or that it has the correct distribution of introduction. Looking at the list of invasive mammals it includes the red-necked wallaby and the Hamadryas baboon both of which would appear to be erroneous. I cannot find any other sources that demonstrate that they exist in Colombia, much less that they are invasive. Nor does it make any sense that either would be invasive in that country. The baboon has a quite restricted ecology, and would be in areas where predators what would very adept. The wallaby is largely incompetent with medium to large cats, and I would be amazed if it could establish any footing at all.
Could someone please enlighten me as to why Global Register of Introduced and Invasive Species should be considered an adequate source. In particular could User:Contrawwftw please make a comment. Jameel the Saluki ( talk) 15:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
The current reference used just justify Onthophagus gazella's inclusion in this list [1] has been demonstrated to be unreliable (see above discussion). User:Headbomb has reverted the replacement citation (Noriega 2017) on the basis that it is predatory source. Being a predatory source does not exclude the use of the source, and I argue that its use in this context is acceptable.
For every species there requires a decision to include or exclude it from this list. An exclusion based on unsatisfactory evidence is as wrong as the inclusion based on unsatisfactory evidence. This is different to typical statements in wikipedia where uncertainty can be solved by omission.
When it comes to determining whether a species is invasive or not, because of the sparsity of scientifically documented evidence, it is required that other sources are used, so long as they appear to be reliable. Further, it is often difficult for academic researchers to publish mere observations in reputed scientific journals because of the requirement in modern times for there to be an element of hypothesis testing. This was not such an issue 50 years ago. Noriega 2017 is authored by paid academics at known institutions. Given the nature of material within the publication it does not seem reasonable to assume that the observers were either mistaken or invented the observations. This appears to be strong evidence that the species is invasive in Colombia, and the source is acting in supplementation to gbif. I believe User:Headbomb is erroneous in his actions to remove this Noriega 2017.
Further Noriega 2017 is excluded then Onthophagus gazella needs to be removed from the list.
As an aside, not that matters to me, but there is no way that CABI Compendium could be described as a journal. It doesn't even describe itself as that - "The Invasive Species Compendium is an open access reference work" published and authored by CABI "an international, inter-governmental, not-for-profit organization". Jameel the Saluki ( talk) 06:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on List of invasive species in Colombia. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I have extreme reservations about the use of the Global Register of Introduced and Invasive Species as a source. It may be that I am using it incorrectly but it seems that there is no information about how species are determined to be invasive. It seems to be on a "trust us" basis. But there are some inherent problems. The geographic entries in the database do not match the maps supplied, so I'm not even confident that the database is error free, or that it has the correct distribution of introduction. Looking at the list of invasive mammals it includes the red-necked wallaby and the Hamadryas baboon both of which would appear to be erroneous. I cannot find any other sources that demonstrate that they exist in Colombia, much less that they are invasive. Nor does it make any sense that either would be invasive in that country. The baboon has a quite restricted ecology, and would be in areas where predators what would very adept. The wallaby is largely incompetent with medium to large cats, and I would be amazed if it could establish any footing at all.
Could someone please enlighten me as to why Global Register of Introduced and Invasive Species should be considered an adequate source. In particular could User:Contrawwftw please make a comment. Jameel the Saluki ( talk) 15:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
The current reference used just justify Onthophagus gazella's inclusion in this list [1] has been demonstrated to be unreliable (see above discussion). User:Headbomb has reverted the replacement citation (Noriega 2017) on the basis that it is predatory source. Being a predatory source does not exclude the use of the source, and I argue that its use in this context is acceptable.
For every species there requires a decision to include or exclude it from this list. An exclusion based on unsatisfactory evidence is as wrong as the inclusion based on unsatisfactory evidence. This is different to typical statements in wikipedia where uncertainty can be solved by omission.
When it comes to determining whether a species is invasive or not, because of the sparsity of scientifically documented evidence, it is required that other sources are used, so long as they appear to be reliable. Further, it is often difficult for academic researchers to publish mere observations in reputed scientific journals because of the requirement in modern times for there to be an element of hypothesis testing. This was not such an issue 50 years ago. Noriega 2017 is authored by paid academics at known institutions. Given the nature of material within the publication it does not seem reasonable to assume that the observers were either mistaken or invented the observations. This appears to be strong evidence that the species is invasive in Colombia, and the source is acting in supplementation to gbif. I believe User:Headbomb is erroneous in his actions to remove this Noriega 2017.
Further Noriega 2017 is excluded then Onthophagus gazella needs to be removed from the list.
As an aside, not that matters to me, but there is no way that CABI Compendium could be described as a journal. It doesn't even describe itself as that - "The Invasive Species Compendium is an open access reference work" published and authored by CABI "an international, inter-governmental, not-for-profit organization". Jameel the Saluki ( talk) 06:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)