1. Why aren’t we there yet? Rod Page

3. 10 predictions

4. The Encyclopedia of Life will continue it's slow decline into irrelevance. …Nobody will care, as we have Wikipedia. 1

5. Catalogue of Life will issue another release, complete with much fanfare. The LSIDs will continue to fail. …nobody will care. 2

6. There will be much talk of integrating biodiversity data …nothing of significance in this area will happen. 3

7. For most young scientists GenBank will be the dominant source of information about biodiversity. …if it hasn't been sequenced, they won't care about it. 4

8. DNA barcoding by itself will become boring... 5

9. Literature that is not online will cease to be read. Taxonomic groups where the literature is not online will effectively cease to be studied. 6

10. The major databases will continue to be riddled with errors …databases will make no (serious) effort to fix these 7

11. No major database effort will adopt wikis 8

12. Data providers such as Thomson Reuters (Index of Organism Names) will continue to clutch to debilitating notions of “intellectual property” 9

13. The chasm between the classifications that underlie efforts such as EOL, and phylogenetic trees being generated by systematists will grow. …Neither community will care. 10

15. Nobody cares

18. Catalogue of Life will issue another release, complete with much fanfare. The LSIDs will continue to fail. …Nobody will care. 2

19. urn:lsid:catalogueoflife.org:taxon:ecaa85e8-0cc1-11e0-9fbc-0ca92ce1e3cc:col20101221 <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#&quot;xmlns:TaxonName=&quot;http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/TaxonName#&quot;xmlns:TaxonRank=&quot;http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/TaxonRank#&quot;xmlns:PublicationCitation=&quot;http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/PublicationCitation#&quot;xmlns:Common=&quot;http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Common#&quot;xmlns:Collection=&quot;http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#&quot;xmlns:Institution=&quot;http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Institution#&quot;xmlns:dc=&quot;http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/&quot;xmlns:TaxonConcept=&quot;http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/TaxonConcept#&quot;> </rdf:RDF>

20. Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

21. Why have DOIs?

22. Link rot

23. Refs

27. users WTF?

29. Wikis

30. The major databases will continue to be riddled with errors …databases will make no (serious) effort to fix these 7

31. No major database effort will adopt wikis 8

32. Why take wikis seriously?

33. Wikipedia takes the scientific literature seriously

34. Finn Årup Nielsen (arXiv:0705.2106v1) Australian Systematic Botany Nature Science

35. Linked data (The future of the web, and always will be…)

37. http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/species/Komodo_dragon

38. Other fields use Wikipedia

39. GeneWiki Huss et al. 2008 doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060175

40. Google search on gene names Huss et al. 2008 doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060175

42. Caveats

43. Authorship

44. Versions 1 2 3 4 History flow

45. Afrotheria

46. Controversy

48. Physeter catodon Physeter macrocephalus

50. We should follow MSW3, as it is what is used in nearly all other mammal articles on Wikipedia. UtherSRG (talk)

51. Nope. The MSW3 is in error in this case. It will stay as macrocephalus . Tag! You're it. Jonas Poole (talk)

52. Please stop. MSW3 is the defacto standard used in the majority of mammal articles … so MSW3 stands. - UtherSRG (talk)

53. So, basically its your fucking bible? Well, I'm a man of little faith. I'll be reverting it back. You, my friend, may stop reverting it. It's quite annoying. Jonas Poole (talk)

54. Yes, contradiction, because I *had* listed macrocephalus as a synonym. … So, since you say that that is acceptable, I'll restore it to be that way. - UtherSRG (talk)

55. That's not what I said you fucking piece of shit. I'm reverting it back to macrocephalus asshole. Damn you fucking cunt. Jonas Poole (talk)

56. Wow. Seriously consider taking a Wikivacation to cool off, man. Your heat is way above this conflict. - UtherSRG (talk)

57. WikiLinks

58. http://ispecies.org Text Genomics Map Images Literature Isthmohyla rivularis is a rare species of frog in the Hylidae family. It is found on along fast-moving, clear streams of the lower and pre-montane rainforest slopes in Costa Rica and western Panama, from . It is threatened by habitat loss. The species was thought to have become extinct in the late 1980s. In 2007, it was re-discovered in the Monteverde Cloud Forest of Costa Rica, and a female was spotted in 2008.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7609780.stm ...

61. http://iphylo.org/linkout

62. NCBI Wikipedia NCBI Wikipedia NCBI Wikipedia exact synonym redirect exact exact

63. 53,000

65. ray2

66. 53,000 ?

67. Against Guidelines Unfortunately the newbie User:Rdmpage suggested something, that is against guidelines ... Enforce something against guidelines has no chance. Guidelines are long term used standards, that we all should respect.

68. I love Wikipedia…

69. … Wikipedia doesn’t love me.

70. http://iphylo.org/linkout

72. Literature that is not online will cease to be read. Taxonomic groups where the literature is not online will effectively cease to be studied. 6

73. Taxonomic exceptionalism

75. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., (4) 19, 147 “microcitations”

77. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., (4) 19, 147. Descriptions of new genera and species of New-Zealand Coleoptera - Part IV by F P Pascoe Annals and Magazine of Natural History (4) 19: 140-147 (1877)

78. Bibliography of Life

79. www.mendeley.com

83. BHL Europe

85. Information wants to be free.

86. Information wants to be expensive.

87. Data providers such as Thomson Reuters (Index of Organism Names) will continue to clutch to debilitating notions of “intellectual property” 9

88. www.theplantlist.org

89. You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work

90. iphylo.org/~rpage/theplantlist

91. taxonomist users

92. taxonomist users

93. taxonomist users

94. taxonomist users

95. taxonomist users

96. taxonomist users