University of Glasgow

Roderic Page

There\'s a recent thread on the Encyclopedia of Life [concerning
erroneous images for the crab
*Leptograpsus*](http://eol.org/pages/4266541/updates). This is a crab I
used to chase around rooks on stormy west-coast beaches near Auckland,
so I was a little surprised to see the [EOL page for
*Leptograpsus*](http://eol.org/pages/4266541/) looks like this: 
 
![Leptograpsus](http://lh5.ggpht.com/-12y3t1PeNPI/T8iAxHhgbhI/AAAAAAAABQc/OgoPGHEeRAo/leptograpsus.png?imgmax=800 "leptograpsus.png"){style="display:block; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto;"
border="0" width="550" height="322"} 
 
The name and classification is the crab, but the image is of a fish
([*Lethrinus variegatus*](http://eol.org/pages/207843/)). Perhaps at
some point in aggregating the images the two taxa, which share the
abbreviated name \"*L.variegatus*\" got mixed up. 
 
Now, errors like this are bound to happen in a project the size of EOL,
and EOL has some pretty active efforts to clean up errors (e.g., the
[Homonym Hunters](http://eol.org/communities/50/newsfeed)). But what
bothers me about this example is the prominent label **Trusted** that
appears below the image. If I look at all the [images for *Leptograpsus*
on EOL](http://eol.org/pages/4266541/media), I see \"trusted\" images
for fish. All images of the crab (i.e., the real *Leptograpsus*) are
labelled \"unreviewed\" and implicitly \"untrusted\": 
 
![Leptograpsus2](http://lh6.ggpht.com/-9cPec6PJ_6U/T8iAyFwFL4I/AAAAAAAABQk/ddNhFHqZkxc/leptograpsus2.png?imgmax=800 "leptograpsus2.png"){style="display:block; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto;"
border="0" width="550" height="486"} 
 
If you are going to claim something is \"trusted\" you need to be very
careful. The images of the fish may well come from a trusted source
(FishBase), and FishBase\'s assertion that the image is of *Lethrinus
variegatus* may well be \"trusted\", but I certainly can\'t trust the
assertion made by EOL that this image depicts a crab. 
 
In this example the error is easy to spot (if you know that crabs and
fish are different), but what if the error was more subtle? Or what if
you are using EOL\'s API and explicitly asking for only content you can
trust? Then you get the fish images (see
<https://gist.github.com/2850321>). 
 
If I can\'t trusted \"trusted\" then EOL has a problem. One way forward
is to unpack the notion of \"trust\" and make sure the user knows what
\"trusted\" means. In this case there are at least two assertions being
made: 

1. This image is of a fish (made by FishBase)
2. This image is of a crab (made by EOL)

 
EOL needs to make clear what assertions are being made, and which ones
it is stating can be \"trusted\". Ideally it also needs to move away
from blanket assertions of \"trusted\" versus not trusted, because
that\'s far too coarse (just because FishBase knows about fish I\'m not
sure I\'m going to put equal trust that every image it contains has been
correctly identified). Trust is something that is conferred by users and
acquired over time, not something to be simply asserted.

There's a recent thread on the Encyclopedia of Life concerning erroneous images for the crab

 Leptograpsus

. This is a crab I used to chase around rooks on stormy west-coast beaches near Auckland, so I was a little surprised to see the EOL page for

 Leptograpsus

looks like this:The name and classification is the crab, but the image is of a fish (

 Lethrinus variegatus

). Perhaps at some point in aggregating the images the two

Messages de Rogue Scholar

Can you trust EOL?