Talk:Baccharis articulata

Plants Low‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Argentina Low‑importance

	Argentina portal This article is part of WikiProject Argentina, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Argentina. If you would like to participate, you can improve Baccharis articulata, or sign up and contribute to a wider array of articles like those on our to do list.ArgentinaWikipedia:WikiProject ArgentinaTemplate:WikiProject ArgentinaArgentine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

reliability of EOL[edit]

Hey @Plantsurfer: I noticed you reverted my tags for EOL sources. I went and asked at WikiProject biology if EOL was reliable and this is what they said.CycoMa (talk) 00:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need better evidence than that. EOL is a project led by the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History. Where is the evidence that Wikipedia's authority and reliability transcends theirs? Plantsurfer 00:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Plantsurfer: you do have a point it is run by the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History, which is reliable. However, the Wikipedia page on Encyclopedia of Life states it is It is compiled from existing databases and from contributions by experts and non-experts. Maybe we might have to discuss this with biology wiki projects.CycoMa (talk) 00:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also there site says this Today, the Encyclopedia of Life is expanding to become a global community of collaborators and contributors serving the general public, enthusiastic amateurs, educators, students and professional scientists from around the world. What do you think about?CycoMa (talk) 01:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds a bit like Wikipedia then, but with more professional involvement and support. What is not to like? To reject it as a source we would need to have factual evidence of significant errors, inconsistency, misinformation, etc., not value judgements. Plantsurfer 11:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Plantsurfer: I think you have a point to be honest. I guess EOL is a good enough source.CycoMa (talk) 03:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]