[Taxacom] iSpecies

[David Campbell]

Such annotation, though requiring appropriate moderation, has particular
advantages of being easy and convenient for the people competent to make
corrections.  They're likely to be working on their own projects and not
have time or funding to tackle a thorough review of a dataset.  But they
are likely to search for information and, in the process, spot
misinformation.  A quick way to flag problems, provide supplemental info,
etc., and the researcher is likely to contribute.  If it takes 10 minutes
of searching through multiple links just to find a possible way to submit a
correction, then there will be a lot fewer edits submitted.  This applies
for many contexts - BHL could improve indexing if readers could flag
unrecognized scientific names and false positives, for example.



On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
wrote:

> Rod,
>
> The only way that this sort of thing is ever going to get beyond the stage
> of "garbage in, garbage out" is by allowing free and unrestricted (but
> moderated in case of spam) annotation....