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

[Douglas Yanega]

On 12/21/21 10:57 AM, Les Watling via Taxacom wrote:
> Looking at this from afar, it strikes me that this is the reason why the
> ICZN has a Board of Commissioners. I have personally stayed off
> iNaturalist, Wikipedia (although they seem to have some people who can make
> professional judgements), and the like.
>
> Until and when the iN folks get an impartial governing board willing to
> adjudicate cases like this I would put them in your rear view mirror. It
> seems like your information and images are very valuable, so it would be
> wonderful if they could be put somewhere else. I know that would be a lot
> of work, but the iN outfit seems to be a bunch of true "amateurs," and not
> worth any more of your time. Or the time of professional taxonomists until
> they become more professional themselves.

I've stayed away from this thread until now, as I am involved in all 
three endeavors Les refers to: I am an ICZN Commissioner, I provide IDs 
for iNaturalist, and I have over 26,000 edits on Wikipedia. In all three 
of these situations, I serve as an expert and a consultant. They are 
not, however, equal.

Also, I think I can clear up some misconceptions here, from my own 
personal perspective:

(1) The ICZN is not nearly as authoritarian as people imagine, nor as 
unified in opinion as is often supposed. We also value feedback more 
than people suspect.

(2) Conversely, Wikipedia is considerably more authoritarian than people 
suppose, and more unified; in plain fact, if you attempt to edit an 
article that sees *any significant traffic* (a very important 
qualifier), you will find that it is harder to make a bad edit in 
Wikipedia than it is to publish a bad paper in a peer-reviewed journal. 
You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia in such a way that your own 
personal opinion is put forth, nor are you allowed to cite your own 
self-published works, or other questionable sources. If a work has been 
criticized by others or contradicted, both sides must be represented, 
*and* represented in such a way as to reflect which side is the majority 
view. Ultimately, Wikipedia works like a ratchet, with articles tending 
to improve over time, and the more feedback there is, the better the 
final result.

(3) iNaturalist tries so hard to be egalitarian that it basically 
disregards expertise altogether. It literally does not matter if a world 
authority states that a photo (or photos) of species X has been 
misidentified as species Y - any people in a thread who misidentified it 
as species Y must *willingly* and *actively* retract their IDs, 
otherwise they can't be removed, and if they constitute a majority, then 
the incorrect ID of such a photo will either persist, or the ID will 
devolve to the genus level only. There is very little incentive, nor is 
there a good protocol, for submitting or addressing feedback.

To bring the issue Stephen is facing back into focus, I will point out 
the following: as an ICZN Commissioner, many taxonomists seek me out for 
advice, and they generally appreciate my help. As a Wikipedia 
contributor, many other editors seek me out for advice, and they 
generally appreciate my help. As an iNaturalist contributor, virtually 
no one seeks my advice, and my opinion is generally ignored, because I 
only speak up when I see something has been misidentified. Accordingly, 
I spend a great deal of time dealing with ICZN issues, a great deal of 
time dealing with Wikipedia, and virtually no time dealing with iNat.

That being said, what iNaturalist and similar social media platforms 
(FaceBook, Twitter, BugGuide, etc.) actually DO have going for them is 
access to raw data. I have been witness to, or participant in, at least 
10 cases of new insect species being discovered via images posted to 
FaceBook or iNat. Likewise, at least that many, if not more, cases where 
a *newly-adventive* species was recognized. Also, if one is dealing with 
a data set in iNat where the observations are getting attention 
primarily from experts and not much from amateurs, the data can be 
extremely valuable, and I am even a co-author on an upcoming paper that 
cites iNat photos as the *primary data source*, and does so with great 
confidence. If the root of the problems with iNat is in their refusal to 
give proper weight to expertise, then perhaps there needs to be 
collective pressure brought to bear to reconsider that *particular* 
policy, rather than condemning the whole enterprise as useless.

The bottom line is that one should never treat any source as being 
either infallible or as being worthless; reality lies somewhere in 
between. Knowing the positive and negative aspects of each source is 
crucial, and one's *impressions*, especially if based on hearsay rather 
than direct personal experience, are not always accurate.

Peace,

-- 
Doug Yanega      Dept. of Entomology       Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314     skype: dyanega
phone: (951) 827-4315 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
              https://faculty.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
   "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
         is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82