Talk:Grass Wood, Wharfedale
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Grass Wood, Wharfedale is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's assessment scale. See comments for details. |
|
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-Priority on the Project's priority scale. | |
Contents |
[edit] Inclusion of information about Lady's Slipper orchid at this site
The question of whether this article should make mention of the presence of Lady's Slipper Orchid (Cypripedium calceolus) has raised its head. As a result of two emails to the OTRS system, one from an police officer representing the West Yorkshire police wildlife crime unit, and one from a member of the public who works for Kew Gardens, the mention of this species has been removed from this article (and the Cypripedium calceolus article). I do not feel that this is correct, and so am initiating a discussion here to attempt to establish an agreed way forward.
[edit] Background
First, some background about me and my editing interests, I guess. I've been an editor since 2005, am fairly experienced as an editor, but by choice, not an admin. One of my primary interests is to expand Wikipedia's content regarding important sites in Britain for biodiversity, and the species and habitat present at them. I've written a large number of articles on such sites, created & expanded a number of lists of these sites, and bit by bit am creating species articles where these are missing.
[edit] Just to remind ourselves why we're here...
I think it will help focus this discussion if I just state why I think we're here, doing what we're doing. We're here to bring the "sum total of human knowledge" together in an online encyclopedia. We are all influenced in out behaviour by lots of other concerns, but when making editing decisions we need to keep our core purpose clear in our mind. "Sum total" doesn't mean everything there is to know, we're not an indiscriminate collection of information, as stated in WP:NOT. We apply criteria such as notability & verifiability to decide what to include and exclude. I'm going to use films as an analogy in this discussion - we wouldn't want to include articles about every film ever made. We want to include articles about those which are notable, and we use some sensible tests to decide which are notable (critical acclaim, awards, amount grossed, influence, career launching films etc). For an ideal film article, we would describe the film (including its plot), and we would include all the information which has resulted in that film being regarded as notable.
[edit] Biodiversity sites
For sites of biodiversity importance, we again have to apply some notability tests to decide what goes in. Grass Wood easily passes, given the large numbers of conservation designations bestowed on it. Given that we agree it belongs here, what do we then include ... well, we include the reasons for its notability, and foremost among these (in a British context) is the presence of Lady's Slipper. We wouldn't forget to mention Ben Hur's eight oscars in the Ben Hur article.
So far, so straightforward. What then happens if there are objections to some of this content? Anyone can come along & remove sections they don't like, and this has happened on at least one occasion to this article in the past. However, if they choose to do that, they have to recognise that the wiki process can undo their change, and go further than that if they are not willing to discuss the issue (on the previous occasion, we had to repeatedly block an IP which was deleting info). In this case, objectors have used a different route, OTRS, and that's led to this discussion. As I understand it, the process for dealing with a contested edit as a result of an OTRS is just the same as for any other contested edit.
My reasons for arguing for reinsertion of the information are outlined above. I also feel that sourcing of the info is important, so I propose that if/when it is reinserted we ensure that sources are given. Probably best if I now let others give their views and we'll take it from there.
SP-KP 16:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- The best thing is not to include too much detail on the location of the wood, at least for now. Giving full co-ordinates seems like a poor idea. Guy (Help!) 19:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
It would be helpful if you could explain why you believe that. Thanks SP-KP 22:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Because it's a fragile population that is very vulnerable; having a large number of visitors could possibly render this plant extinct within the British Isles, either incidentally or as a result of less-than-scrupulous collectors. Wikipedia is supposed to document, not influence. I know about the observer effect, but I'd rather not see this article say "Grass Wood used to contain the last-known population of Cyprididium Whateveritscalled in the British Isles, until poachers, guided by the Wikipedia article, tried to steal them but accidentally killed them" or some such. It is not relevant to the article on Grass Wood that it mention every single endangered species which is found there. Okay? DS 22:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll reply more fully to your points about threats/impacts etc in due course, but can you expand on your comment that "It is not relevant to the article on Grass Wood that it mention every single endangered species which is found there."? I've read & re-read that several times and I can't figure out what you mean. Why is a notable fact about the subject of an article not a relevant piece of information for inclusion in that subject's article? SP-KP 22:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- ..that's because I got sidetracked partway through the sentence. Sorry, it doesn't parse; my fault. Let me try again. It is not necessary that the article on Grass Wood mention every single endangered species that is found there. Yes, it is relevant that endangered species are found there. But is it necessary to mention each and every one? I hold that it is not. DS 02:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that, that makes sense now. To help me be clear on where our areas of difference are, I think we're in agreement that the presence of Cypripedium here is a notable fact about the site - would you agree? I'd even go as far as saying that it's the most notable botanical fact about the site, would you? And we both agree that the site itself is worthy of an article, whether or not we mention the orchid, is that correct too? The difference of opinion is only about whether the orchid's presence here should be included in the article, am I right? SP-KP 07:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd concur that Cypripedium's presence is interesting, but not that it's the Most Notable Botanical Fact. I'd agree that the site itself is worthy of an article. DS 23:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Could you expand on that a little? To me, what makes this the most notable botanical fact is that it is the only extant site for this species in Britain and has been for years, resulting in significant conservation attention, whereas the other species present, though some are rare, are not under a comparable degree of threat. Can you say why you don't feel the same way? Are there other botanical facts which are more notable, which I've missed? Can we agree at least that this is among the most notable botanical facts, even if is not the most notable, or do you think it is rather non-notable; if so why? SP-KP 07:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Discussion on this subject seems to have ground to a halt. I therefore propose to restore the article to its pre-OTRS-edit state. I'll wait a few days to give others the chance to contribute further before doing so however. SP-KP 14:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I've been busy. I am not an expert on this site. I do agree that this is among the notable botanical facts; however, it is not the only one, and therefore it does not need to be mentioned. DS 21:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I think we're both clear on the issue - now we need to decide how we resolve this disagreement. What are your thoughts on how we should do that? SP-KP 21:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- The word "sensitively" springs to mind. There's no pressing need to make it easy for people to find the place or to know what treasures are there. We should not go much further than the British wildlife conservation sites in discussing location and actual populations, I think. But I don't have time for a lengthy debate now as I am in the middle of planning a large office relocation this weekend. Guy (Help!) 21:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have been clearer - what I meant was what specific mechanisms can we bring to bear in helping us to make our decision. All we have so far are just my opinions, your opinions, and DS's opinions, and we're not really making progress. We have a comprehensive framework here at Wikipedia for enabling decisions to be made on more than just diverging opinions - I was wondering what, within that framework, you felt would be of most use in enabling us to arrive at an agreement. Your comment about time is noted and, as a result, I won't push this too fast - there's no rush, it's more important that we end up doing what's correct. SP-KP 21:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
If I may chip in here folks, and apologies I do not do this correctly as it is my first time. Firstly I would raise the question of your source for the information regarding the orchid location. This information is not given in any of the official designation descriptions for the site and is therefore not "officially" out there in any form that I am aware of. The location is on private land, and apart from those who had permission to visit only those people who have visited the site illegally, trespassing, would have knowledge of the location. This suggests that the information was obtained illegally by trespass? How does this tie in with wikipedia rules on sources of information, as well as the rights of the landowner who owns the land and the orchid?
Secondly, posting the location of the orchid on Wikipedia is directly endangering the orchid. I am one of the official pollinators of the orchid, and noticed for the first time in 2006 the almost constant presence of several people were sitting on a hillside opposite watching the site. This is the first time this has ever happened, and when questioned some of these watchers quoted Wikipedia as their source Every year, several people try to access the site directly, which is of course on private land. During the summer of 2006 there was a surge in visitor traffic and attempted access to the site. Some of those questioned who volunteered where they got the site location from said it was from Wikipedia. Apart from obvious risk to the plant from poaching, extra traffic causes erosion and compaction on a very sensitive and fragile site, directly endangering the plant and its future. It is therefore unequivocal that posting the site location on Wikipedia is encouraging illegal activity (trespass and damage to a European protected species) and is having a direct and harmful effect on the plant and its immediate environment, a plant which is a Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Species, a Schedule 8 plant under the Wildlife & Countryside Act (as amended), a European protected species under the Conservation (Natural Habitats &) Regulations, a Habitats & Species Directive II and IV Species, a Bern species and a Red Data Book "Critically Endangered" Species.Eden black
Thanks for that contribution, Eden. Regarding your point that the site may not be included in any official sources - do you mean statutory? If so, I agree. The information has however been in the public domain in plenty of other ways for very many years - for example, if I put my mind to it, I could probably think of a few dozen botanists who I know who know the location and would have no worries about passing details on to other botanists. In terms of published sources, there are a number of site guides used by botanists in Britain; I obtained the info initially from Colin Twist's "Rare plants in Great Britain, a Site Guide", and as I've suggested above, if we decide to re-include the information, that (and/or other guides) should be given as a source. Can you clarify whether the people sitting on the hillside opposite the site are trespassing? Twist's guide seems to suggest that this is not the case. To help us with our decision, it would be useful if you could also give some extra info (quantitative data if possible, even if vague, would help) to give us an idea what you mean by a surge in 2006 and what you mean by "almost constant presence". Could you also explain a more fully how this is endangering the orchid as that isn't totally clear (to me at least) from what you've written above? Thanks SP-KP 17:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I mean statutory, for very obvious reasons! Yes of course the location of the site has been known, but generally only to a small number of botanists, a very small clique who keep it amongst themselves, and arguably it is that similar group who would use any site guides (incidentally, how specific is the site info in Colin Twist's book?). The public at large and general countryside users would not be aware of such information... unless posted on the Web of course, and I think a completely different group of "mildly-interested-naturalists" are now being encouraged/facilitated to try and access the site!
As far as the observers go, yes I believe they are trespassing. There is a footpath which passes nearby, but this does not give the right to stop and observe, merely to pass. The land adjacent is open access land, but restrictions placed on open access land remove the right of access for certain restricted activities and people undertaking those activities are therefore trespassing. Such activities include, under Schedule 2,(q) "in relation to any lawful activities which persons are engaging in or are about to engage in on that or adjoining land, does anything which is intended by him to have the effect- (i) of intimidating those persons so as to deter them or any of them from engaging in that activity (ii) of obstructing that activity, or (iii) of disruption that activity" The presence of people watching the site through binoculars and scopes certainly intimidates, deters and disrupts normal lawful site activity which by its very nature is intended to be clandestine.
Additionally, anybody taking photographs for commercial purposes, or on any organised walk or tour, would also be breaking access restrictions and be trespassing.
People observing the site, apart from trespassing as outlined above, are not of course directly endangering the orchid. They are however indirectly endangering it by raising the profile of the site, and make obvious to those who pass by on a nearby footpath that there is something going on, further increasing general public awareness of the site and increasing the risk of those attempting to access the site... I cannot tell if your questioning here is intended to be provocative or merely analytical? As far as specific numbers go for trespassers to the actual site, I would have to speak to the wardens first and am not sure I could release specific figures, may be able to give a percentage though. Eden black 10:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. My questions are not intended to be provocative - just an attempt to help us arrive at an well-informed decision on what is not a straightforward issue. To answer yours, Colin Twist's book gives a short site account, but other than saying that the orchids are on a slope/bank, and giving a list of associated species, no more specific directions to the plant are given. If I can also respond to one other thing ... you are definitely misrepresenting (not intentionally, I'm sure) the size of the group of people who know about the species at this site - I am based a couple of hundred miles aware and the few dozen botanists I can think of who know about it and would have no problem telling others are all in this part of the country. Multiply that up by similar numbers in other parts of the country, and you have far more than just a "very small clique". I can only assume you just aren't aware how well known the site is. Thanks for clarifying the position with the footpath. Anything you have regarding recent visitor volume changes would be helpful. SP-KP 13:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
SP-KP 13:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Any further comments anyone?
As the question above remains unresolved, it would be useful to know whether anyone intends to make any further contribution to the discussion. Thanks. SP-KP 17:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I would not say it is unresolved, there seems to be a consensus against restoring the link. To back up some of my earlier points, I have done a rough analysis of figures and there has been an approximately 8% in people "observing but not entering" the site and a 125% increase in people illegally entering the site in 2006 compared to 2005. Eden black 12:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Eden, so you're saying that a comparatively large number of people visited but didn't enter in both years, and that a minimum of 4 people entered the site in 2005, and a minimum of 9 in 2006. That gives some useful data to help interpret your earlier comments - a small but possibly statistically insignificant (we'd need to know the numbers) increase in the numbers visiting but not entering, accompanied by a clear increase in the numbers entering last year, although equally clearly entry into the site is not a new phenomenon either. Out of interest, how obvious on site is the intention of the site owners that people should not enter - e.g. are there keep out signs, fences etc? SP-KP 17:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment from Gareth:
Dear SP-KP, This is the first time I have used Wikipedia in this way. My name is Gareth, and I have been following this debate with interest. I am not connected to anyone else here, nor am I connected to the conservation of the species in the UK; and for your background I consider myself as merely an active naturalist/wildlife enthusiast etc, as you may do yourself? I see that a few people (I think) have been involved in the discussion you instigated, although it is sometimes hard to tell who is saying what as the page to me is a little unstructured. So far the stream of opinion has been against the view you hold. And like the others, I do not agree with your conclusions either. My reasons are as follows.
Conservation Strategy:
You mention that you do not intend to be provocative in the approach you adopt to this issue. It is my opinion that you are being provocative to the people that devote vast amounts of time to the conservation of this species in the UK (Im sure a few are volunteers too). For better or for worse the conservation strategy for this species has always been to protect the exact location of the remaining wild population. News leaks and always will. People with enough drive to find out about the location of the plant will no doubt find out.
However, the information was, as far as Im aware, not easily accessible on the internet until you posted details in your Wikipedia articles (which then gets copied onto other websites). With your bold statement here I believe you are making a decision that the conservation strategy is for the worse, and it is better that the Committee in charge of the species conservation in the UK ditch this part of their current strategy (that has been successful for many years). You may not have considered your actions in this light, I don’t know. You may believe that it is better that the information is freely available on such a public forum. Fortunately we live in a society where you have the freedom and ability to express your knowledge, beliefs and opinions to a wide audience.
But when you do decide to do what you have done in these two articles you are being provocative to the people who actually devote their time to protecting this species, simply by ignoring the obvious conservation strategy in place for this species to date. And with that you get the responses as above, and no doubt in the emails you (or Wikipedia?) received. If you really want to influence the conservation strategy for this species would it not be better to speak directly with the Committee in charge of it?
Information in the Public Domain:
The information on this species has to a limited extent been public knowledge. I can think of three means by which I have come across the site details in the last 10 years (excluding your articles). One of these is Colin Twist’s book. This is a private publication and has never been widely available, although I agree it has no doubt made the location of the species less of a secret. It will not and does not reach an audience that Wikipedia does. A google search on “Cyp. calc. Britain” brings your article as third in the list. I personally do not believe because information has leaked out on the species in the past, that is grounds for further disseminating such information, for the reasons I have already given. It is one thing letting your fellow botanist friends know about the species, another publishing detailed information on what has become one of the biggest internet sites around.
Sum total of Human Knowledge:
Your reasoning for wanting to provide details of this species at its last remaining site is the ethos that Wikipedia should be a place to gather the sum total of human knowledge. A laudable aim, and I wish you all the best in helping to achieve it. I will no doubt continue to find interest from this site when I search the internet. I do not however agree that the aim you express is a more pressing aim than that of the strategy to protect the species, a strategy you are compromising. This is what I believe you are saying if you do continue to promote such information. I also do not even believe that the overall Wikipedia aim is compromised by not releasing such information. i.e.
(1) we, the users of the site don’t need to know everything about a site/habitat/species, (2) even if it is notable, it is not the only notable feature of what is an impressive wildlife site, and there are plenty of other notable features about Grass Wood that are not documented here, (3) information on Cyp. calc. can happily (in relation to the aim) be documented on its own page with notes such as restricted to one Yorkshire site, kept secret for reasons of its conservation.
If I were in your shoes as an editor of pages here, I would weigh up the two aims and come to a different conclusion to you. I don’t know how the procedures at Wikipedia work, but it sounds like if you want you can re-instate the information at any time, and unless someone convinces you otherwise you will do. I hope that what every other person involved in this debate has said, has at least made you think twice about providing this information. I would say that if you really feel strongly about expressing the information why not get involved at the sharp end of the plants conservation and contact the Committee? If you really want to know the nature of the private signs on the wood, and the levels of pressure, is that not a better avenue to explore?
Final observations from me:
Despite what I have written here, I am generally in favour of dissemination of information on wildlife for people to enjoy. But that needs to be done with thought to the conservation measures for each species/habitats, effects on third parties etc, otherwise the rarest may not be around tomorrow for the next load of keen wildlife enthusiasts. I know from reading the news that the Committee in charge of the species conservation is trying to provide public sites to view the species as part of the recovery programme, but that is taking time.
I am also in favour of your aims of access to information, but Wikipedia does not exist in a vacuum, and you need to also consider the consequences to others and to wildlife of your actions. Thanks, and apologies for the length, Gareth.
Response from User:SP-KP:
Thanks Gareth, that is a useful contribution, and it is good that this discussion is attracting more contributors, and in particular that it is now attracting contributors without a vested interest in the decision under discussion - only in that way can we start to make some progress, I feel. Just to satisfy you in respect of your implied concern, that I am posting this information here because I disagree with the conservation strategy, that is not the case. I don't have an opinion on the conservation strategy. I do have opinions on the dissemination of biodiversity information, however, and that is what was behind my original edits, and the proposal that the information is reinstated. You mention Wikipedia processes - just to explain, although I can at any time add the information back in, any other editor can at any time take it back out again. Because that leads to what we call "edit wars", the established principle here is to take discussion out to the talk page in an attempt to resolve the issues, hence the exchange above.
I'm not optimistic at present about our ability to resolve the difference of opinion. My reason for saying that is that contributors do not seem to be focussing on what, in the context of what we're doing here (I refer back to my initial paragraphs at the top of the page) are the core issues. Instead people are bringing in issues that don't really have anything to do with Wikipedia content, policies, principles etc. I fully appreciate that in our capacities as individuals, people who are editors have views on a wide range of issues unconnected with what we do here, such as conservation strategies. However, bringing those opinions into the discussion and letting them cloud our decisions, doesn't seem to me to be very helpful.
Please therefore can I ask that all the editors who have contributed above post a rationale which supports their viewpoint which is based solely on issues of direct relevance to Wikipedia? SP-KP 17:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
You are implying everything posted here so far is irrelevant. we cannot consider "core purpose" in isolation of other "clouding issues" especially as Wikipedia is causing/contributing to those issuesEden black 10:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Eden, no, that's not what I'm saying. There is some material above which is pertinent to the decision, but much of it is not, I'm afraid - I think your lack of experience of how we make decisions here is probably what's leading you to think otherwise. Your comment "we cannot consider 'core purpose' in isolation of other 'clouding issues'" is presented as a statement of fact, whereas I assume you meant to present it as an opinion? If it's an opinion, then you're perfectly entitled to it, but you need to present it in terms relevant to Wikipedia, otherwise we can't really use it to help guide our decision. It may be possible to find guidance within Wikipedia which supports the general point you're making (which as I understand it - correct me if this is wtong - is that the possible impact of the information we add should influence whether we add it) but it is certainly possible to find guidance which does not say that. There may well be some specific examples where views like yours have gained consensus amongst editors but in general this isn't the case based on my experience. If you could find examples which support the editing decision that you're asking us to make (or even just similar decisions), that would help move things forward. SP-KP 18:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
