There have been a bunch of recent flags regarding IDs applied to photos of human beings.
I’ve been hiding the IDs which are obviously deliberately false (identifying someone as a cow, a rat, a mushroom, etc), but there have also been a number of flags on broad but not incorrect IDs (Animalia, Mammalia, Primates, Simiiformes, Homo, etc).
Personally I feel that those are perfectly legitimate IDs and should not be an issue, but some users feel strongly that these IDs are insulting towards the photographed individual. Since there seem to be some strong feelings involved, I wanted to check with other curators and make sure I’m not off base on this - what do you all think about it?
(A related issue - some of the users who feel these identifications are inappropriate have been commenting on observations requesting that the identifier delete their IDs. I am uncomfortable with this approach, but again, I want to see what others think before I take any actions)
Why would the identifier put a broad ID when IDing to species is obvious? As @supertiger points out, the most obvious answer is that they are trying to call into question the humanity of the human pictured. Are there other plausible reasons? I suppose in some cases they might be blindly following the computer vision, which maybe with a poor or unusual photo would only get as far as Animalia. Perhaps they are trying to forestall the observation becoming casual by not IDing it as Homo sapiens. None of these are good reasons.
OT … Another case for observations of humans to be directly dismissed. Homo sapiens is a useful taxon to ID human artifacts, especially when at first thought to be true organisms or traces thereof, but I think iNat should basically be a place for observation of non-human biodiversity. To me the need for curation of observations of humans is a waste of time.
But we are! It seems weird to pretend we’re somehow exempt from the taxonomic tree?
But my main point is that it seems unfair to have people getting reprimanded for providing an answer that is both correct, and allowed by the site system.
Maybe I’m just touchy about it because of the neurodivergence, but feels very much like all the “unspoken rules” I’ve run into in my life where you’re just supposed to somehow know things that make no logical sense.
My assumption was that, since they’re usually kids, it’s a case of learning about classifications - they’ve just learned humans are mammals, so why not take a photo of a human and ID it as “mammal”?
But in the end, the only thing I really care about is this: if people generally agree that these kinds of IDs are not appropriate, it needs to be made explicitly clear somewhere. Unwritten rules are horrible unfair things.
I would always wish and hope that this was the case, but I think this is not a very safe assumption, especially when it comes to kids.
The terms “animal” and “monkey” have historically been applied pejoratively to humans much more often than they have been applied in a taxonomic sense. I think the safer assumption is that the subjects of these photos would probably not want those terms applied to them.
I personally think it’s much ado about nothing, like a lot of flags we get. Ideas of what is and isn’t inappropriate vary between individuals. I just ID as human and move on.
If someone else wants to make it into a bigger deal then go ahead. In my opinion the labelling as human or ape, particularly in kids cases, is probably calculated to get a reaction and by getting upset and taking action other than adding an id and moving on, we are playing into the troll’s hands. Just my 2c.
Assuming that these were deliberately applied rather than by the CV, coming from children or teenagers, I would have to agree that it seems more likely to be mean-spirited than not. New users, especially at that age, probably don’t have an in-depth understanding of how iNat taxonomy works; they just know that these are labels applying to the organism in the photo. As labels applied to an individual human, those all look like insults to me.
This seems unlikely to be productive to me… just add the correct identification, maybe flag the original ID if you feel strongly about it. A comment is unlikely to get a response and so is counterproductive if your goal is to erase evidence of the insult.
I will note that almost all of the “Homo” genus level IDs that I have seen for Humans (which sometimes get flagged) have the CV symbol on them. I think it would be unfair (and potentially turn off new users) to delete/reprimand/assume bad faith for these IDs that are suggested by the system. I would guess some of them are probably intended as jokes, but I would also guess that it wouldn’t even have occurred to some users to ID as “Homo” (the genus) on their own unless the CV suggested it to them in the first place.
In general, I agree with OP that I think broad taxonomic IDs should be considered “passable” since they are correct (though I am sure some proportion are intended as jokes/insults) unless there is some other element of the observations that indicates they are intended to denigrate the person in the photo (comment, description, context). Unless this is present, I think IDing as “Human” and not otherwise engaging does send a message (the community acknowledges the humanity of the subject and this is a serious site).
I agree that it would be unfair to reprimand and assume bad faith for all these IDs. However, I disagree that it would be unfair to delete these IDs. The potential for harm to the subject of the observation is far greater than the potential for harm to the observer, speaking as someone that has been on the receiving end of “homo” jokes in high school biology classes. I even had a teacher say, “well they’re right; we’re all Homo sapiens” instead of addressing what was a blatantly obvious case of bullying. If anything, I think taking a relatively benign action will encourage observers to post observations more aligned with iNat’s intended use.
In my experience, bullies are very good at treading the line in a way that allows them to cause harm to others while not getting in trouble. Again, I don’t think observers should be reprimanded for doing something within the bounds of the rules, but removing a higher ID isn’t a reprimand.
If this approach (hiding all higher level IDs of Humans) is needed, then it needs to be addressed systematically, not by flagging and hiding by curators. The iNat platform currently suggests “Homo” as an ID on up to hundreds/thousands of observations/day of which it is selected by IDers for some proportion. Including higher level IDs in this approach would only increase the number of IDs this would apply to. Justification for hiding these IDs currently relies on the assumption that they are made in bad faith (the key criteria for hiding is “intentionally inaccurate” regardless of motivation), and curators need to “write a note stating your interpretation of why the intentionally inaccurate identification was made.” when hiding. Hiding these IDs would be (and currently already is to some extent) a thankless task for curators who are volunteering their time. Manual hiding of hundreds/thousands of iNat suggested IDs with accompanying IDs and comments explaining the action to new users is not generally what curators signed up for.
Additionally, having curators manually hide these IDs would be confusing to observers - why would iNat suggest a technically correct ID that then needs to be hidden and doesn’t meet the criteria for hiding in the first place (since it isn’t inaccurate)? This issue may be magnified for users from other cultures/languages. Despite the widespread use of the English language, many users will not know that “Homo” is a slang insult in English. Having their ID deleted either without notification or with an explanation (that might be lost in translation) could provoke feelings from confusion to anger (e.g., “Are you accusing me of homophobia/sexism?”). Hidden IDs also appear on a user’s moderation history (since iNat works under the assumption that hidden IDs are those made in bad faith, see above) - this means that users making these IDs which were hidden would “have a record” on iNat, which would be unfair in a some proportion of instances.
I don’t think that ID hiding alone (what I think the quote below is referring to) will lead to much positive change:
ID hiding doesn’t generate a notification, so observers will likely not notice that it has occurred. If IDers don’t know, they can’t be expected to change their future actions. The only way to correct this behavior would be to leave comments with a “Human” ID explaining the action. Given that users adding higher level IDs come from all countries/languages, and that explaining the potential issue without insulting the observer and engaging with them may be challenging, even in a curator’s native language, this seems an almost impossible task. Additionally, many users adding “Homo” or other higher level IDs on human observations are
Attempting to educate them about this issue is likely to have little benefit in the long run (either for them or the iNat community) and again is not a good use of limited curator time.
NB: I am assuming that “deleting” generally refers to “hiding”. Curators can’t delete, only hide.
NB: If we’re bringing personal experience, I was targeted pretty relentlessly with the name “Homo Boy/Guy” on my school bus in middle and high school.
I agree. But “no action is needed” is different from calling for a change that eliminates genus-level Homo suggestions by the CV.
Additionally, I think flagging is the way to handle IDs such as “Great Apes” as adding such an ID is (almost) always intentional and very often used to teasing (if not downright bully).
Hence the “if anything” precursor. My point being that it is just as likely to lead to a positive change as it is to lead to a negative one such as…
Even for observations IDed fully as Homo sapiens, I’ve seen iNat staff add “Please don’t add observations of humans” to their confirming IDs.
I agree. I also think that domesticated pets/farm animals should not be included. As for those in zoos or cultivated plants I’m on the fence on. Obviously best practice is observations in nature.
The taxon page for Homo has zero obs.
Is that because identifiers and curators methodically flag and clear each ID as it happens? Then it would be better if iNat prevented adding Homo as an ID in the first place.
that’s fine. However, the position you expressed in your previous posts was that these IDs should be deleted. That is explicitly what I am disagreeing with - having official policy be to rely on users to flag higher level IDs of human observations and then curators to hide them would be a policy I would strongly reject.
I will also note in response that I disagree with the addition above:
based on my previous explanation. Hiding a user’s ID is essentially a reprimand as
and
general users can see that an ID has been hidden and any comments following it from curators explaining the issue to the IDer whose ID was hidden (which curators should do, especially if positive change is desired)
and
In my experience, users already interpret flags themselves as reprimands (which they aren’t essentially). I think most users, me included, would interpret their ID being hidden and a comment stating what was wrong about it from a curator/moderator that goes on “their record” as a reprimand.
More broadly, I feel like an approach in which above-species level IDs of humans are expected to be flagged and hidden effectively assumes “bad faith” for a decent swathe of iNat content. While I agree that these types of IDs are more likely to made in bad faith than other iNat content, working from an assumption that they all are feels wrong to me, especially when the curator guide notes " Wrong identifications that are made in good faith should not be hidden." (Emphasis in the guidelines).
I realize I may not have expressed my position as clearly as I intended. I didn’t mean to suggest that all higher-level IDs of humans must be hidden. Rather, I believe curators should have the discretion to hide higher-level IDs on human observations when there are signs of teasing or bullying. Human observations are already discouraged, and there’s often a lot of nuance involved, so I think a flexible, context-sensitive approach is more appropriate than strictly adhering to technical correctness.
As a curator, you probably come across more human observations with higher IDs than I do. But as an identifier, most of the ones I remember, if not most of the ones I encounter, are fairly clear examples of bullying. And I agree Genus Homo should not be provided by the CV, and instead it should always suggest the full species for humans.
Here are three specific situations I’ve seen in the past, along with how I approached each:
Situation 1: ID: Ancestral and Modern Humans (Homo), with or without the CV indicator. Action: I add an ID of Homo sapiens. I don’t flag the observation unless there are signs the person didn’t want their photo taken such as hiding from the camera.
Situation 2: ID:Homo with a comment like “Homo” or “HOMO sapiens” to add emphasis to their intent. Action: I add an ID of Homo sapiens and flag the observation. In my view, this kind of comment is clearly intended as teasing or bullying. Even if the observer hasn’t technically violated any rules, I think curators should be allowed to hide these IDs and comments. Prioritizing technical accuracy in these cases seems to miss the broader point about community respect.
Situation 3: ID: Great Apes. Action: I add an ID of Homo sapiens and flag the observation. IDs like “Great Apes” are almost always intentional and are frequently used to tease or bully. Again, I don’t see any benefit to prioritizing technical accuracy.
I’ve seen the same one or two curators consistently respond to my flags on situations like #2 and #3. They’ve typically taken the following actions: hide the ID or comment, add an ID of Homo sapiens, and leave a note like “please don’t add observations of humans.”
I very much agree that your scenario #2 is worth flagging and then curators hiding the picture of the target (to me this is more important than hiding an ID if there is actual bullying). This would be a clear example of what I referred to earlier as a reason to hide: