Talk:DAD-IS

Copyvio

The text for this stub was taken for the sake of accuracy directly from the FAO's DAD-IS website, and edited to reduce similarity to the source. Obviously not edited enough, as it got tagged within minutes! I've altered it further. If still not enough, please let me know, or advise on how to add an acknowledgement of the source. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Stupid bot. I think your edit fixed the problem, so I'll toss the tag. If someone is unhappy about that, they can take it to me. Montanabw^(talk) 16:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on DAD-IS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121021071803/http://www.fao.org/dadis/ to http://www.fao.org/dadis/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Removed SYNTH table of figures

I have removed this table as an incorrect, unnecessary and synthesized copy from the source that is not needed for this Wikipedia article.

Last year, an editor made updates, including updating the source from a 2016 FAO report to a 2022 one,[1] and updated the table of figures from the new report tables 2 & 3;[2] most of the figures were correct, but a few were not. The following day another editor changed some of the figures with no effective explanation, and the numbers they changed did not appear to match the source,[3] but I was able to track down that they added in figures from tables 4 & 5 of the source (transboundary breeds).

However, by combining numbers from two different sets of tables in the source, the Wikipedia editors have created a table of numbers that does not correctly convey the meaning of the original source, also known as WP:SYNTH.

I point out a few notes from the source: "Note: International transboundary breeds are counted in each region where they occur. Therefore, for this category of breeds, the global total is not the sum of the regional totals." (page 7) and "Tables 4 and 5, respectively, show the numbers of reported regional transboundary breeds of mammalian and avian species in each region of the world." (page 8)

By combining tables for local (non-transboundary) with transboundary, the result is a synthesized table which doesn't correctly explain the data, like the source does. Since the source is open access (a government report) if a reader wanted to see such data they could easily click the link and see the report with its explanations of what the data means. This synthesized table here in Wikipedia does not.

  ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 19:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Evaluation concludes DAD-IS is generally unreliable for horse topics

(Note: My report is based on evaluating what is DAD-IS with regards to it being cited as a source in Wikipedia horse breed articles.)

Working on cleaning up this article has been extremely frustrating. Every one of the sources provided were published by the subject's underwriter (FAO) — nothing independent of the subject — and many of the URLs were to main webpages with no specific information to verify the content of this wiki article. Basically, the article was a composite of copied information and original research.

I read enough of the FAO reports (from the References section) to understand why the DAD-IS system was created and why it's important to the world (see Sustainable Development Goal 2 § Target 2.5: Maintain the genetic diversity in food production). I read that data is collected and entered by each country by their appointed "National Coordinator" (who could be anyone, or no one), and that there are vast failings of the project through noncompliance (or inability) to collect and record data (many countries report nothing at all). There is no one evaluating the data for conclusions, nor is anyone assessing the data for correctness; whatever the National Coordinators enter is what you get.

The purpose of the United Nations project (for which DAD-IS is only one tool) is related to ensuring an effective genetic diversity of food-generating livestock across the world. This means that horse breed information is secondary to many other species (like cattle) because the use of horses for recreation is almost universal, while horses are a source of food (meat and milk) to only very small populations of the world. This is likely one reason why the horse data is pathetically sparse and inaccurate... because it doesn't fit well with the goals of the project (assurance of future food supplies).

The database was for counting animals and for genetic diversity research (like logging information of DNA and embryo collection). The database was not intended to be a source of information of breed-specific morphology traits (breed standard information) except to describe regional variations or descriptions of minor breeds that are relatively unknown (reports specifically mention India as an example).

Unfortunately, some Wikipedia editors have cited DAD-IS's minimalistic data as a source to describe horse breeds, including: names, alternative names, morphology of horse breeds (characteristics such as height, weight, and color), and range (which countries). I'm not even sure that the "at risk of extinction" status is reliable (after I checked numerous breeds and many countries and found a lot of missing data; breeds that should have been marked "at risk" but were not, and vice-versa). The data just isn't reliable for horse breeds.

And that is why I came to this article—to see what "DAD-IS" was. Unfortunately the article didn't provide the answers for me; fortunately my digging into this topic has.

First and foremost, DAD-IS is a database, not a published report. The closest thing to a "report" you can get is what you can draw off the database by doing a query, but that's still raw data... a primary source. And worse, since the data is entered by whomever and not checked or evaluated, it's on the level of a self-published source. Since so many countries and breed entries are blank (unreported), you cannot even draw any conclusions of how many of a particular breed is in the world. From my own searches of the database, the information is too sparse to draw any conclusions of value to Wikipedia.

A few examples of horse breed articles citing DAD-IS for unreliable information about conservation status and breed morphology include:

• Marwari horse
• Belgian Draught
• Scandinavian Coldblood Trotter
• Boerperd
• Knabstrupper
• South German Coldblood

There probably are a good 100 to 150 or so horse breed articles referring to DAD-IS; possibly many more.

The DAD-IS database is equivalent to "generally unreliable" source status, similar to WP:GUNREL, for the purpose of horse breed articles.

  ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 17:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

My take is that it is no better than any of the horse breed encyclopedias – reliable enough if it’s all we’ve got, but should not supercede better material. For example, a breed registry or organization should be acknowledged as the expert on what a breed standard is, and not the DAD-IS. I also think the way the DAD-IS distinguishes between male and female sizes is kind of ridiculous as there is relatively little sexual dimorphism in horses. I would not be comfortable downgrading it to “generally unreliable“ because sometimes it’s all we have, particularly for obscure breeds in the developing world, but I do think it should be treated with quite a bit of caution. Montanabw^(talk) 20:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

GUNREL isn't the same as deprecated or blacklisted, because GUNREL allows for some usage. My evaluation matches Wikipedia's description for WP:GUNREL, specifically: the source is questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published, or present user-generated content. The database data is exactly that.

Then GUNREL cautions: outside exceptional circumstances, the source should normally not be used and even in cases where the source may be valid, it is usually better to find a more reliable source instead. If no such source exists, that may suggest that the information is inaccurate. The source may still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions. I suppose if some third-world country with a unique within-country horse breed has entered morphology information about "their" breed, and no one else has any information at all, one might consider that to fall under "exceptional circumstances" and "uncontroversial self-descriptions".

As for the print-book horse breed encyclopedias: at least they have been through some sort of editorial process, and someone is putting their name as the author or editor/compiler where we can check if they are a subject-matter expert, whereas with DAD-IS all data is anonymous to the public. We have no method of identifying if the person who compiled or entered the information for CountryX to put into DAD-IS was a subject matter expert, or a low-level government clerk who phoned some random farms for information.

I consider online horse breed encyclopedias to be almost universally unreliable sources.

I agree with you that breed registry "standards" are the senior reliable source for breed morphology... after all, they're the ones actually defining it for current and future generations of a breed.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I wish there was something a bit milder than GUNREL... DAD-IS is sourced by government officials, so it's not really Find-a-grave. But I acknowledge your point. I just don't want to see people who don't understand horse breeds going through and randomly removing DAD-IS sources when they are about the only thing there is. Wikipedia has a problem with not liking sources that verify topics related to the Global South in general. I just don't want to contribute to that. Montanabw^(talk) 20:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Best to focus on the "generally" and less on the "unreliable" (in the term GUNREL).   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 20:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Notes

References