[Taxacom] iNaturalist and the dangers of community ID sites!

[Peter A Rauch]

Stephen,  I remain uninformed about why you were "suspended" from
participating in / contributing to iNat.

While the concerns you raised about (tantamount to) "vandalism" may have
validity, and perhaps deserve critical review and resolution, it seems to
me --from what you report here on Taxacom-- that it was not that concern
which you raised with iNat admins (?on iNat, or off-line?), but the "tone"
(propriety, tact, ad hominem, ...?) on which the iNat admin(s) acted to
suspend your participation.

If that is the case, then perhaps that is the first problem which you need
to understand and to address fully and respectfully?

Peter R.

On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 7:15 PM Stephen Thorpe via Taxacom <
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:

>  Well, there is still some hope of sorting this mess out! It really does
> turn on convincing iNat admins in California that what Hegg did was
> tantamount to vandalism, and so justified a temporary suspension of him
> by me, until such time as the matter could be meaningfully discussed. They
> need to understand that the magnitude of my contribution to their website
> means that I took Hegg's attack very seriously and that I was put under
> tremendous pressure in the heat of the moment to try to deal with it (while
> screaming for help!) I'm not perfect, so I may have dropped the dreaded
> F-word (has that ever killed anyone, except seemingly in USA?!) and tried
> using a sock account to regain control of the community ID (though I only
> did that for one, and then I thought better of it). Ideally, I need someone
> credible to back up my assertion that for someone (Hegg, in this case) to
> overturn the ID of a government biosecurity authority, without discussion,
> and on the incredibly flimsy basis of not matching iNat exemplar photos and
> having a strong superficial resemblance to another genus, before even
> bothering to consult the relevant literature, is about as shockingly
> irresponsible and scientifically cringeworthy it is possible to get!Cheers,
> Stephen    On Sunday, 19 December 2021, 04:04:39 pm NZDT, Ivie, Michael <
> mivie at montana.edu> wrote:
>
>  And after all that, it is just “gone.”
>
> __________________________________________________
> Michael A. Ivie, Ph.D., F.R.E.S.
>
> NOTE: two addresses with different Zip Codes depending on carriers
>
> US Post Office Address:
> Montana Entomology Collection
> Marsh Labs, Room 50
> PO Box 173145
> Montana State University
> Bozeman, MT 59717
> USA
>
> UPS, FedEx, DHL Address:
> Montana Entomology Collection
> Marsh Labs, Room 50
> 1911 West Lincoln Street
> Montana State University
> Bozeman, MT 59718
> USA
>
> (406) 994-4610 (voice)
> (406) 994-6029 (FAX)
> mivie at montana.edu
>
>
> From: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2021 7:41 PM
> To: Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>; Andriy Novikov <
> novikoffav at gmail.com>; Ivie, Michael <mivie at montana.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] iNaturalist and the dangers of community ID
> sites! Mike,That is a view, but, on the other hand, I had populated the
> internet with good images (particularlt recently) and associated collecting
> data of many species that even many taxonomists will never see in the wild.
> I have little videos of the critters in action in the field, immature
> stages, plant damage (mines, galls, etc.) It is a fantastic free resource.
> There are several professional taxonomists on iNat who take an interest in
> my observations, e.g. Geoff read, Robert Hoare, and several others. I
> couldn't have predicted that it would end this way, so quickly and without
> warning, as I desperately tried to alert iNat admins for advice, but
> nothing came back to me in time and I didn't know what Hegg was going to
> turn his attention to next. I didn't actually know, until it was too late,
> that the observations of a suspended user are no longer publicly
> viewable!Cheers, Stephen
> On Sunday, 19 December 2021, 03:29:14 pm NZDT, Ivie, Michael <
> mivie at montana.edu> wrote:
>
> <!--#yiv0897092258 #yiv0897092258x_yiv0155063341 p
> {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}-->
> Stephen, You exactly describe why I think it is to be a waste. Someone can
> put up anything, and someone else has the ability to erase a record of
> contribution.  No filter on either. Does that by itself not pretty much
> show it is a waste of time?  The published record can be disputed, but
> never erased.  Non-vouchered “data” can be endlessly debated, but are never
> verifiable.  Stephen, you have tons and tons of ability and energy, put it
> to more worthwhile use.You are not a victim, women in Afghanistan are
> victims.  You have been liberated.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Michael A. Ivie, Ph.D., F.R.E.S.
>
> NOTE: two addresses with different Zip Codes depending on carriers
>
> US Post Office Address:
> Montana Entomology Collection
> Marsh Labs, Room 50
> PO Box 173145
> Montana State University
> Bozeman, MT 59717
> USA
>
> UPS, FedEx, DHL Address:
> Montana Entomology Collection
> Marsh Labs, Room 50
> 1911 West Lincoln Street
> Montana State University
> Bozeman, MT 59718
> USA
>
> (406) 994-4610 (voice)
> (406) 994-6029 (FAX)
> mivie at montana.edu
>
>
> From: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2021 7:20 PM
> To: Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>; Andriy Novikov <
> novikoffav at gmail.com>; Ivie, Michael <mivie at montana.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] iNaturalist and the dangers of community ID
> sites! Mike,OK, your previous reply left most of that to the imagination!
> There some truth in your current explanation of what you meant. However, it
> is a bit more complicated. iNat does have great potential as a repository
> for biodiversity data. At any rate, I have "wasted" pretty much the entire
> last decade trying to make something solid of it, only now to have it all
> threatened by Danilo Hegg, the self-appointed infallable identification
> authority for taxa that he has never studied! I would honestly be
> interested in your assessment of the approach that he took to identifying
> Balta bicolor (assuming that I have reported it faithfully). Hegg is
> actually a published taxonomist, but not in roaches! My view is that he has
> let his ego bring taxonomy into disrepute. Please note that I don't have to
> be a published roach taxonomist in order to justifiably follow an ID by our
> official government biosecurity authority (MPI). But for Hegg to roll back
> my IDs, without discussion, on the mere basis of iNat exemplar photos and
> superficial similarities to Ellipsidion, without first having even bothered
> to read the original description (the only modern treatment), is simply
> beyond belief as far as I can see!Cheers, Stephen
> On Sunday, 19 December 2021, 03:03:48 pm NZDT, Ivie, Michael <
> mivie at montana.edu> wrote:
>
> <!--#yiv0897092258 #yiv0897092258x_yiv0155063341
> #yiv0897092258x_yiv0155063341x_yiv6712046743 p
> {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}-->
> I just do not think iNat to be important enough to worry about.  As you
> pointed out, it is a social thing, not science.  Stephen, I consider your
> time on it to be a waste of your very considerable expertise, and far from
> being a victim, you should consider it your salvation. Mike
>
> __________________________________________________
> Michael A. Ivie, Ph.D., F.R.E.S.
>
> NOTE: two addresses with different Zip Codes depending on carriers
>
> US Post Office Address:
> Montana Entomology Collection
> Marsh Labs, Room 50
> PO Box 173145
> Montana State University
> Bozeman, MT 59717
> USA
>
> UPS, FedEx, DHL Address:
> Montana Entomology Collection
> Marsh Labs, Room 50
> 1911 West Lincoln Street
> Montana State University
> Bozeman, MT 59718
> USA
>
> (406) 994-4610 (voice)
> (406) 994-6029 (FAX)
> mivie at montana.edu
>
>
> From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> on behalf of Stephen
> Thorpe via Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2021 5:50 PM
> To: Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>; Andriy Novikov <
> novikoffav at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] iNaturalist and the dangers of community ID
> sites! Thanks Andriy for a more thoughtful and scholarly reply than the
> previous one! Realistically, I'm probably going to have to surrender my
> curator status on iNat, but I should be able to continue to contribute,
> after my suspension gets lifted, but things aren't looking overly
> optimistic just at present. As you say, people prioritise the social
> aspects over the science, and don't seem to care so much that Hegg's
> approach to the identification of this species was so utterly flawed. Even
> his etiquette was seriously flawed, rolling back my IDs with no prior
> discussion, and without first "doing his homework", at least in my opinion,
> however, blaming the victim seems to be all the rage on social media
> platforms, particularly in cases like this when it is one against several
> (i.e. all my old foes on iNat coming out of the woodwork to back up Hegg!)
> Just like what Mike just did to me here on Taxacom [sorry Mike, but just
> saying!] I guess I don't need to explain the influence of bully politics to
> someone from the Ukraine, which seems to be vulnerable to similar forces
> but on a much bigger and more serious scale. All the best, my new
> friend.Cheers, Stephen
>     On Sunday, 19 December 2021, 01:39:33 pm NZDT, Andriy Novikov <
> novikoffav at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  This is really shocking!I believe that such suspension should not affect
> your contribution. Of course, we all should try to be kind, but it is
> really difficult to see how some amateurs or nonspecialists 'correct' your
> contribution. This is a dark side of social science when it does not matter
> how right you are, but how kindly you behave and fit the social frames. As
> a result, science loses - but who cares. For many people, such social
> platforms like iNat are some kind of entertainment, and they treat science
> in an unserious way so. This is what always scared me from iNat and other
> similar platforms.I am really sorry to hear this, Stephen. You are totally
> right. But I do not know what to do. Probably the best way is to propose to
> iNat that they will unlock your observations and you will not contribute to
> iNat never after. If they want to play in their sandbox, so go on.
> Sincerely, Andriy.
>
> нд, 19 груд. 2021 р. о 01:36 Stephen Thorpe via Taxacom <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> пише:
>
> Hi All,
> I find myself the victim of something of an attack on iNaturalist, the
> upshot being that I am currently suspended (removing all my 50000+
> observations from public view!) I'm moderately hopeful of being reinstated,
> possibly no longer with curator status. People at this end are working on
> it, but it seems to be serious. I would therefore like to put on public
> record exactly what happened, as a cautionary tale of the dangers of
> community ID sites like iNaturalist. When it goes wrong, it can go very
> wrong, very quickly!
> So, without a word to me, Danilo Hegg rolled back all my IDs of the
> cockroach Balta bicolor, publicly commenting that I had made a big mistake
> and that they were all some unknown species of Ellipsidion. He was
> congratulated by another user for uncovering my "big mistake"! This poses
> an immediate problem because the 50 or so affected observations are now no
> longer straightforwardly searchable as Balta bicolor and the distribution
> of the species can no longer be straightforwardly mapped, etc.
> In principle, community ID can outweigh Hegg to restore the Balta bicolor
> ID, but in reality there is pretty much nobody on iNat familiar enough with
> the group to make a meaningful judgement. That is a problem.
> Anyway, when I noticed all this and challenged Hegg, he wouldn't budge. It
> turns out that his judgement was initially based on the fact the
> observations didn't match the exemplar photos for the species on iNat.
> However, there are few quality controls on exemplar photos on iNat,
> especially for relatively "obscure" species like Balta bicolor. Some
> unknown person had recently changed the exemplar photos for Balta bicolor
> on iNat to another species, clearly misidentified! I then corrected those
> exemplar photos, but they could change again at any time, without much
> control.
> The other reason why Hegg thought that I was wrong is that Balta bicolor
> closely resembles, superficially at least, some species currently included
> in the genus Ellipsidion. OK, so what? Maybe it is a result of convergent
> evolution? Maybe Balta bicolor is currently misplaced in Balta and should
> in future be transferred by taxonomists to the genus Ellipsidion? Maybe
> Ellipsidion is really just a specialised species group nested within Balta?
> We just don't know.
> Anyway, I then informed Hegg of a fact he appears to have overlooked, that
> my ID of Balta bicolor was based on a validated new to N.Z. report by our
> official government biosecurity authority (MPI). Hegg responded by claiming
> that MPI must have got it wrong!
> Now, here's the killer: only at this late stage did Hegg think that maybe
> he should consult the original description (the only recent taxonomic
> treatment) for Balta bicolor! I noticed him request a copy from someone on
> iNat, so I provided Hegg with a copy. It was immediately clear from the
> description that the former exemplar photos were indeed misidentified. So
> far so good. However, although the description matches the N.Z. species as
> well as one can reasonably expect for a written description from 1943, and
> based on limited material from the native range in Australia, Hegg still
> maintained that I was wrong and he was right. He did what I can only
> describe as fixating on minor interpretative ambiguities in the description
> to try to maintain his seemingly fixed in concrete view on the matter. He
> misquoted the description as saying that the tegmina were conspicuously
> bicoloured, when in fact it said that the limbs [legs] were conspicuously
> bicoloured and that the tegmina were "usually bicolored". Again, all
> attempts by me to explain this to him were immediately dismissed by him.
> From my point of view, about 50 observations had already been damaged by
> Hegg's actions and I didn't know what might be next on his "hit list". I
> therefore considered him to represent an immediate threat to iNat,
> requiring immediate action. So, as a purely temporary measure I suspended
> him just until such time as I could raise awareness of the issue and get
> meaningful discussion/consensus. I immediately emailed iNat help desk,
> asking for urgent advice, but I still haven't had any reply.
> Someone unknown to me on iNat kept on unsuspending Hegg, without
> contacting me to ask why I had suspended him, or asking me to unsuspend
> him. As far as I knew, it could have just been a friend of Hegg, covertly
> trying to unsuspend him. I therefore kept reapplying the suspension,
> pending some sort of discussion. OK, I got a bit frustrated and made some
> comments that were very mildly inappropriate, and tried to solve the
> problem in ways which were arguably technically against the rules, but I
> felt taht I had to act quickly to try to avoid further damage to iNat
> observations, always seeking advice and discussion which wasn't forthcoming
> quickly enough. The upshot is that I'm now suspended and the admins the
> N.Z. node now need to negotiate with head office in California in order to
> lift my suspension. Only if and when that is successful will my
> observations return to public view.
> I'd be interested in any comments on all this.
>
> Sincerely, Stephen
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> _________________________________________
>
> Research Scientist, Dr.  Andriy Novikov
>
> State Museum of Natural History
>  National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
>
> Teatralna str. 18
>  79008 Lviv
>  Ukraine
>
> Researcher ID: K-4997-2013
>  ORCID: 0000-0002-0112-5070
>
>