- Explore community
I do understand the difficulties.. In order for iSpot to work there needs to be that go-to resource of knowledge. That knowledge has been built up by individuals who are rarely (if ever??) paid for doing it and asked for our benefit to share it.
Now we'd be pretty out of order to just expect that knowledge to be given (and sifting iSpot isn't without time cost) without anything in return.
For some it may just be that warm fuzzy feeling from helping someone identify something new for the first time or confirming a hard won identification is enough.
For others they will be more interested in the science and that i feel is where things can get tricky.. In biological recording is someone identifies something for you that record becomes there intellectual property, if they confirm an identification you made then the intellectual rights are shared. Which is fine, if people know they are making biological records!
And this is where i see a separation. iSpot as far as i am aware is not about biological recording.. yes it has all the key parts to make a biological record and i would hazard a guess that most on iSpot would be happy that their information was being used in this way (in fact i know some already think it is!).
Really there needs to be a choice. Is iSpot about biological recording (via citizen science) or is it about community engagement, awareness raising and learning. It's not that it can't strictly be both, but conflicts will not allow it to do both equally well also with the existence of iRecord (which is biological recording) are they both not in direct competition?
In a way this could be partially solved by a user account checkbox stating "Do you provide biological records elsewhere". Which if checked would prevent iSpot observations being taken further.. But you are still trying to make iSpot something that perhaps it shouldn't be?
(note this has come from some preliminary discussion in: "6 different people imagine a fungus" http://www.ispot.org.uk/forum/2992)