Visualising the Wikipedia classification of mammals

As part of my on-going experiments with Wikipedia as a repository of taxonomic information, I've extracted mammal pages from Wikipedia. There's a lot to be done with these, but the first thing I wanted to ask was whether the Wikipedia pages would form a tree (i.e., had the authors of these pages managed to ensure the pages formed a single, coherent taxonomic classification). The answer, as shown in the graph below, is no.

The graph contains 7750 nodes, each one representing a Wikipedia page with a Taxobox containing the class Mammalia. A node is connected to the node corresponding to its parent in the mammalian classification.

If it formed a single classification there would be just one component. Instead, it contains 841 distinct components, many of which you can see at the bottom. If you want to explore the graph, I've made an image map here using the wonderful graph editor yEd. You'll need to move the browser's scroll bars to see the graph. If you click on the node you'll be taken to the corresponding Wikipedia page.

Note: The graph has been laid out using yEd's organic layout command, so it won't look tree-like. The diagram is intended to testing for connectedness only.

Some of these components may be due to errors in my parser, but many are due to inconsistencies in Wikipedia. Typical problems are Taxoboxes containing taxa for which there is no page in Wikipedia (these are visible as redlinks), or monotypic taxa where the pages for the genus and species are the same).

Of course, the joy of Wikipedia is that these problems can be easily fixed, but the trick is discovering the problems in the first place. There is a distinct lack of tools to enable Wikipedia editors to view the entire classification of interest and identify areas that need fixing (something Roger Hyam alluded to in his comment on an earlier posting). It would, of course, be great to be able to edit the graph shown above and have those changes automatically transmitted to Wikipedia.

Scientific citations in Wikipedia

While thinking about measuring the quality of Wikipedia articles by counting the number of times they cite external literature, and conversely measuring the impact of papers by how many times they're cited in Wikipedia, I discovered, as usual, that somebody has already done it. I came across this nice paper by Finn Årup Nielsen (arXiv:0705.2106v1) (originally published in First Monday as a HTML document, I've embedded the PDF from arXiv below).

Nielsen retrieved 30,368 citations from Wikipedia, and summarised how many times each journal is cited within Wikipedia. He then compared this with a measure of citations within the scientific literature by multiplying the journal's impact factor by the total number of citations. In general there's a pretty good correlation.

What is striking to me is that

When individual journals are examined Wikipedia citations to astronomy journals stand out compared to the overall trend (Figure 2). Also Australian botany journals received a considerable number of citations, e.g., Nuytsia (101 [citations]), in part due to concerted effort for the genus Banksia, where several Wikipedia articles for Banksia species have reached "featured article" status.

In the diagram, note also that Australian Systematic Botany (ISSN 1030-1887), which has a impact factor of 1.351, is punching well above its weight in Wikipedia. What I want to find out is whether this is true for other taxonomic journals. Nielsen's study was based on a Wikipedia dump from 2 April 2007, and a lot has been added since then (and the journal Zootaxa has become a major publisher of new taxonomic names).

But what I'm also wondering is whether this is not a great opportunity for the taxonomic community. By responding to {{citation needed}}, we can improve the quality of Wikipedia, and increase the visibility of their work. Given that many Wikipedia taxon pages are in the top 10 Google hits {{citation needed}}, our work is but one click away from the Google results page. Instead of endlessly moaning about the low impact factor of taxonomic journals, we can actively do something that increases the quality and visibility of taxonomic information, and by extension, taxonomy itself.

Scientific citations in Wikipedia

To wiki or not to wiki?

What follows are some random thoughts as I try and sort out what things I want to focus on in the coming days/weeks. If you don't want to see some wallowing and general procrastination, look away now.

I see four main strands in what I've been up to in the last year or so:

1. services
2. mashups
3. wikis
4. phyloinformatics

Let's take these in turns.

Services
Not glamourous, but necessary. This is basically bioGUID (see also hdl:10101/npre.2009.3079.1). bioGUID provides OpenURL services for resolving articles (it has nearly 84,000 articles in it's cache), looking up journal names, resolving LSIDs, and RSS feeds.

Mashups
iSpecies is my now aging tool for mashing up data from diverse sources, such as Wikipedia, NCBI, GBIF, Yahoo, and Google Scholar. I tweak it every so often (mainly to deal with Google Scholar forever mucking around with their HTML). The big limitation of iSpecies is that it doesn't make it's results reusable (i.e., you can't write a script to call iSpecies and return data). However, it's still the place I go to to quickly find out about a taxon.

The other mashups I've been playing with focus on taking standardised RSS feeds (provided by bioGUID, see above) and mashing them up, sometimes with a nice front end (e.g., my e-Biosphere 09 challenge entry).

Wiki
I've invested a huge amount of effort in learning how wikis (especially Mediawiki and its semantic extensions) work, documented in earlier posts. I created a wiki of taxonomic names as a sandbox to explore some of these ideas.

I've come to the conclusion that for basic taxonomic and biological information, the only sensible strategy for our community is to use (and contribute to) Wikipedia. I'm struggling to see any justification for continuing with a proliferation of taxonomic databases. After e-Biosphere 09 the game's up, people have started to notice that we've an excess of databases (see Claire Thomas in Science, "Biodiversity Databases Spread, Prompting Unification Call", doi:10.1126/science.324_1632).

Phyloinformatics
In truth I've not been doing much on this, apart from releasing tvwidget (code available from Google Code), and playing with a mapping of TreeBASE studies to bibliographic identifiers (available as a featured download from here). I've played with tvwidget in Mediawiki, and it seems to work quite well.

Where now?
So, where now? Here are some thoughts:

1. I will continue to hack bioGUID (it's now consuming RSS feeds from journals, as well as Zotero). Everything I do pretty much depends on the services bioGUID provides


2. iSpecies really needs a big overhaul to serve data in a form that can be built upon. But this requires decisions on what that format should be, so this isn't likely to happen soon. But I think the future of mashup work is to use RDF and triple stores (providing that some degree of editing is possible). I think a tool linking together different data sources (along the lines of my ill-fated Elsevier Challenge entry) has enormous potential.


3. I'm exploring Wikipedia and Wikispecies. I'm tempted to do a quantitative analysis of Wikipedia's classification. I think there needs to be some serious analysis of Wikipedia if people are going to use it as a major taxonomic resource.


4. If I focus on Wikipedia (i.e., using an existing wiki rather than try to create my own), then that leaves me wondering what all the playing with iTaxon was for. Well, actually I think the original goal of this blog (way back in December 2005) is ideally suited to a wiki. Pretty much all the elements are in place to dump a copy of TreeBASE into a wiki and open up the editing of links to literature and taxonomic names. I think this is going to handily beat my previous efforts (TbMap, doi:10.1186/1471-2105-8-158), especially as errors will be easy to fix.

So, food for thought. Now, I just need to focus a little and get down to actually doing the work.