A new contest on Wikipedia! We’ve all seen the glories brought to web science by this year’s WikiCup winner, User:Cwmhiraeth, who equates my spelling her name incorrectly with her having 1000s of daily readers of Wikipedia encounter her made up science. I think the equivalence is lame. Other editors have posted on her talk page, pointing out her problems with biology, and another Wikipedia editor also posted critical of Cwmhiraeth’s efforts in Featured Articles and Good Articles, and rightly so. Her efforts in these areas reach far more readers, and the more people you expose to made-up science, the bigger an offender en.Wikipedia is.
“Dear Cwmhiraeth, as a fan of your contributions (actually creating new articles) on lots of otherwise ignored species, I was really disappointed with your GA and FA efforts. Now you are welcome back to creating new articles and bringing a great number of species into light again. Best wishes —Hanberke (talk) 06:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)”
This user should also look more closely at Cwmhiraeth’s new article efforts, which clearly show her lack of understanding of basic biology.
Let’s first look at how this user is contributing to bettering en.Wikipedia by writing stubs; later on we’ll see if there is anyone else more helpful or clueless.
Wikipedia has a responsibility to reel in these users who are creating articles that contain made up science and these editors who are approving the made up science and putting it on the main page where it is copied extensively by wiki mirrors.
Brought to you by Wikipedia Stub Contest:
Okay, the Pteropodidae family is a family of bats that contains some megabat species. Simple enough? No. “Megabat” is the common name for the Pteropodidae family, and nothing in this opening sentence indicates the least understanding of biology, common names, bats, mammals, anything. Was this already there due to the article being created by a badly programmed bot or did someone else add it? Doesn’t matter; Cwmhiraeth is credited with expanding the article and should have the least knowledge of bats to correct this.
Again, this tree is a species of baobab in the baobob genus? Oh well, at least it’s not wikilinked to the article and a redirect to the article.
“This bat is believed to be the main pollinator of the flowers of these trees.”
Does this agree with the source?
No, of course not.
“Baum (1995) proposed that bats were the only pollinators of A. suarezensis, but both his study and ours were short and although we recorded no lemur visits to this baobab species, lemur pollination … cannot be ruled out…. (the flowers) are both suited to pollination by bats and lemurs…. … it is possible that the relative contribution made by lemurs and bats will vary over a small spatial scale. [More research is needed.]
Grade for falsifying the science? F.
Same bat poop channel. Grade? F.
“Isalo National Park is a National Park in the Ihorombe Region of Madagascar. The park is known for its wide variety of terrain, includingsandstone formations, deep canyons, palm-lined oases, and grassland. The closest town is Ranohira, and the closest cities are Toliara and Ihosy.”
This has one of my favorite parts of Wikipedia park articles, a species count.
Flora and fauna
“A total of 340 faunal species are known to inhabit the area, including 82 species of birds, 33 species of reptiles, 15 species of frogs and 14 species of mammals.”
I want to know what type the missing species are, amphibians? Insects? What numbers do they use in the cited source? Well, it mentions some numbers, but not the same ones.
“Les animaux de l’Isalo sont typiques du climat, de la végétation et de la géomorphologie du parc. Ce sont, pour une très forte majorité, des espèces endémiques. 77 espèces d’oiseaux vivent à Isalo dont le merle de Benson ou Pseudocosyphus bensoni, une espèce endémique de Madagascar qui est très protégée. On y trouve aussi 14 espèces de lémuriens diurnes et nocturnes dont 8 introduites et 7 endémiques de Madagascar. Reptiles, amphibiens, carnivores, insectivores et rongeurs complètent la liste.”
It’s number count isn’t much better, but, it does not include the information cited to it as a source.
Stop plagiarizing, stop making up science, stop having contests that encourage it.
And, I hope I misspelled someone’s name here.