Very often we use Wikipedia to start off with research. In the articles about specific themes you also find the specific terminology, so when building sources, no matter if it is for a dictionary or for vocabulary learning tools like Parley of KDE-Educationals.

Let's take an example for terminology research. In Ambaradan we have Agrovoc, the the multilingual thesaurus by FAO. It has already loads of contents, but is far from being complete. Let's take an example:

http://aims.fao.org/agrovoc-term-info?mytermcode=330530&mylang_interface...

eng: Aaron's rod

If you look at the various languages that are available, you will see: three is no scientific name (scientific taxonomy) associated to it. There are plenty of translations, for example German:

deu: KOENIGSKERZE

Which for a German speaker or a person knowing German well is good enough, but for someone learning the language? OE needs to be "ö" and then the normal writing would be: Königskerze.

But is that really 100% correct? Well, let's see ...

Let's start from the English Wikipedia searching for Aaron's rod.

Over the search results or one of the pages you are lead to, depending from your clicking on Go or Search, you reach the disambiguation page:

Well, looking at the proposed entries: we go for the Common Mullein.

So now we know that it's called Verbascum Thaspus. And the next step is to look at it in German, to see if Königskerze is really correct. On the left hand side under languages you find the inter language links.

But what's that? It is called Kleinblütige Königskerze and is part of Königskerzen - Königskerze is very likely the wider term for Aaron's rod and NOT the correct translation.

Well, let's ask Google. We search for "Verbascum Thaspus Deutsch English"  and receive quite some good pages. Just one taken by chance at nomen.at:

So here it is ... and it confirms that the dictionary entry should be:

• lat: Verbascum thapus (scientific taxonomy)
• eng: Aaron's rod (among others)
• deu: Kleinblütige Königskerze

And we also find some more languages.

This clearly shows one thing: any resource on the Internet can be wrong and whatever we find is not just to be taken as is: it needs to be confirmed.

Of course: most entries, when we create them based on what we know really well will be fine, but when we take over ressources from anywhere it always means: check it first. This is one of the reasons why we want as many different ressources for terminology as possible in Ambaradan - it helps to find out what is really correct and which sources are the ones we can trust up to a high level or not. But please always remeber: nothing is perfect.