It seems like most of us agree: Wikipedia is blessed though, like pop music (or an ugly partner), it is easy to love it and then deny one's affection for it publicly, especially in the science world. Now, with the introduction of Wikispecies, started in August 2004 by Wikimedia, several other debates of how an open source, free content catalogue of all things living can work.
Daniel Pauly is not only the father of the term "shifting baselines" but co-father to Fishbase with Dr. Rainer Froese. This online database is a multilingual melange of expert information, including taxonomy, growth parameters, ecological data, and even photos from Pauly's own collection of fish-inspired stamps (see photo).
Pauly thinks Wikipedia is "a fantastic product" and he sees the two databases on two sides of a spectrum: one (Fishbase) requiring an authoritative nomenclature (the work of professional taxonomists)--"the 'hooks' on which the information hangs"--and a core of trained scientists (in this case, based in the Philippines) that source and verify all the information; the other (Wiki) requiring a commitment to openness and submissions from biologists around the world (that do have to sit well with Wikispecies' technical panel). The two products could probably never merge due to their entirely different spirits. But Pauly wonders if and how these two products could strengthen rather than undermine each other. Any ideas?