Re: Irisregister and the Wiki

[Robert Pries <robertpries@embarqmail.com>]

Question of Wiki

As most everyone knows I like to communicate by phone. It allows for me to ask questions and listen. It is very easy for a written response to become a lecture. Nonetheless if people are not listening, then a written response gives them the chance to read and evaluate what they may not be hearing.
I do lots of research to discover, what is the place of the Iris Society in the horticultural community. Since many specialty societies face the same economic conditions as we do, there is lots to be gained, by studying the horticultural world. Presently the Iris Societies have been loosing members and a greater proportion of members then other societies. Many of the major plant societies have changed their business plans and are in the act of changing them further. Many of the things I have suggested are either already reality with other groups, or are in the process of becoming so.
Recently, I discussed with several officers of the daylily society how they were coping with the new cultural realities. Their new business plan is going to include the formation of electronic memberships. I prefer not to use the term members-only sites because no one is suggesting eliminating the services that already exist to regular print members. But Electronic membership is an added service that provides things that are additional to the traditional services that the society provides with membership. The Iris register is an example of a very limited e-membership.
When officers told me that the Daylily society was creating e-memberships, I asked if their illustrated checklists were going to be on the members site. They were shocked that I would even ask. They explained, that they felt it was the obligation of an international registrar to have the information as freely available as possible and that to charge for that information would be unethical. With the internet there are new expectations for the conduct of registration authorities. Most now have available their checklists with images online. The old argument that no image can adequately portray a particular plant and therefore images should not be used is insulting to the intelligence of the viewers. To assume that the general public is so ignorant of the limitations of photography that they can not be trusted to interpret what they see seems a bit elitist.  
I said now many times over and over that the wiki has the potential for being a key element in saving the Iris societies, not just AIS, but all the Iris societies. Plant societies used to be where people went to get information. Finding sources for plants and the social network that aids in enjoying the growing of the plants are other factors. But the Iris societies have not been fulfilling this role. As of today the premier resource for iris information is the Internet and Daves Garden. The Iris society has not filled the void, But the wiki is working on remedying that. If it is a robust resource it can bring people to AIS and to all the iris societies.
I have from the outset called the wiki the Iris encyclopedia. Not the illustrated checklist, Not the Iris photo gallery, But Encyclopedia. It holds the potential for being much more that the other two. And frankly if it were only either of the other two it would not be effective in promoting the Iris societies.
The suggestion that the wiki not contain the registration information seems not particularly well thought through. If it did not then people would have to create their own descriptions. How anyone could support that and worry about people viewing images that are not quite right seems inconsistent. I think the wiki should have as much authority as possible and the registration information is the rock that should be built upon.
Now the concern that has been expressed is that by allowing the registration information on the wiki you endanger the income from the Iris register. I think the evidence is to the contrary. It has been mentioned that wiki docents have joined the register. Certainly the docents are volunteering to create the wiki because they believe in its vision. It is possible that the wiki docents could easily exceed the number of members of Iris register. But I suspect that most will want to join the Iris register in order to ensure the accuracy of the wiki. Iris register should increase not decline for that reason alone. But lets put things into perspective. Iris register has existed for several years now and how many new members has it brought to AIS? It has 280 members but AIS has been loosing over 300 members each year. 
What is the potential of the wiki? For the first two weeks in January the AIS website had 37,000 views. The wiki during the same period even though it is only under construction had 21,000 views. From the historical information I have from the Google adwords campaign a couple of years back  It would seem likely that at a minimum the wiki could bring 150,000 people to the AIS website each month Actually it is possible the figure could be ten times larger that that. Today when someone googles an iris name the usually get Daves Garden. That is because the cultivar names exist on that website. But Daves Garden only has about 8.000 Iris names. The wiki as it nears completion could have 80,000 Iris names. Because it is by membership google does not send someone to the Iris Register. As of this week Daves Garden has 493,000 registered users, 7,233 of these pay $25 in a subscription that is primarily a donation to support the website. We could compare this to the less then 5,000 members of the Iris Society with 280 supporting the Iris registry. As a percentage the Iris register does about 3 times better than D G. But imagine the potential of the wiki if it were made known that an e-membership helped to sustain the wiki. 
Now let us look at the opposite situation. Suppose we did not allow the wiki to use registration information what would happen. I already have e-mails from wiki workers that have said if this is an example of the way the AIS board thinks then I quit. By trying to protect the Iris register at the expense of a robust wiki there could be a significant backlash  I do believe both can compliment each other and should not be at odds.

----- Original Message -----
From: "John I Jones" <jijones@usjoneses.com>
To: aisdiscuss@aisboard.org
Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 1:25:44 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: [AISdiscuss] Irisregister and the Wiki

I have been pondering an issue for some time and feel that it is time  
to bring it before the board to make sure that what is happening is  
what the board wants,

The issue is what irisregister information should be allowed in the  
Wiki.

The Wiki is moving forward and entries are being made as you read  
this. I has become apparent that people entering the irises into the  
Wiki in addition to what ever description and pictures they  
personally add, are also copying the full text entry for that iris  
from the irisregister into the Wiki entry.

If this is what the Board wants then so be it, but I think that we  
should consider the impact of such action.

The irisregister has been a significant source of revenue for AIS  
since its inception garnering over $16000.00 since 2003— almost  
$2300.00 per year. The effect of putting the irisregister information  
in the Wiki is to give the information away for free to anyone (since  
the Wiki will be open to anyone at no cost).

There are also lots of people that have paid for 3, 5, and 10 year  
subscriptions to irisregister who will now see that we are giving  
that information away for free.

It is true that irisregister will still have some advantages over the  
wiki.
- the search engine has greater flexibility and control than the Wiki
- Irisregister gets updated with new and corrected information  
particularly on older irises
- Irisregister has the reserved names included in its database

People use irisregister primarily for:
- Getting descriptions of irises for sales or their own database(s) -  
Wiki will provide the same

Other (but far less) uses for irisregister:
- doing research on parentage - Wiki probably won't be able to do  
this as well
- doing name searches for new introductions - Wiki won't do this as  
well because it will lack the reserved names

The irisregister information can be kept out of the Wiki because  
every entry to the Wiki must be reviewed by the "docents" for  
propriety and they can easily recognize an irisregister entry. The  
Wiki has some 4000 entries already, but that should not be a major  
effort to correct. I am sure that not all of the entries have  
irisregister excerpts in them.

The Wiki's real claim to fame is that it has pictures (up to 20 per  
iris) and I applaud its value in that regard. I am, in fact, against  
having pictures as part of the official AIS registration primarily  
because of the inconsistency of photographic and display technologies  
and vagaries, and in that regard Wiki provides a valuable resource.  
The full registration descriptions are of limited additional value in  
the Wiki unless people want to copy them out for their own purposes.

The Wiki will also have some advantages because the newest  
introductions can be placed in the Wiki whereas there is a delay in  
placing the newest R&I information in irisregister.

I think the Board needs to proactively decide what, if any,  
irisregister information should be allowed in the Wiki. I think we  
need to consider the monetary impact on the AIS through loss of use  
of the irisregister. No I don't know the magnitude of that impact,  
but I can tell you that the majority of irisregister use is to get  
descriptions.

John

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to the AIS Secretary
<aissecretary@irises.org>
The archives for AISDiscuss are at:
http://www.aisboard.org/lists/aisdiscuss/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to the AIS Secretary
<aissecretary@irises.org>
The archives for AISDiscuss are at:
http://www.aisboard.org/lists/aisdiscuss/