Anonymization option(s) is something we want to do, but as to when it would potentially be available I don’t know.
4 Likes
I want to add that in my view it is vitally important that (whatever other options there are) there should be an option that leaves the IDs active. Simply put, this is the biggest issue with account deletion.
To use myself as an example (I’m not planning to delete my account btw!) I am now the top identifier of hoverflies in Europe. I’ve identified more than a fifth of all European hoverflies (the biggest family in the order Diptera). The second top identifier in Europe, at their current rate, would take more than a decade to replace my IDs (without doing any others). This is the sort of situation that other taxa have faced. Perhaps it is unavoidable to give the nuclear option, but all of the problems stated above with keeping pseudonymised or non-pseudonymised-but-inactive account IDs active, in my opinion, absolutely pale in comparison to this. I appreciate that keeping anonymised account IDs active would be more problematic, but even that I think is worth considering.
8 Likes
another high volume identifier seemingly gone
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/how-can-i-find-my-needs-id-observations-that-have-identifications-from-others/59867
it’s frightening to me how many more account deletions will happen before new features are implemented to address it
10 Likes
(Skipping through some other comments but…)
When you ‘delete’ (actually anonymize) a Wikipedia account, the edits you made don’t suddenly disappear. The same way I don’t expect at least IDs the user made should disappear, as it could be a disaster.
Deleting of observations is a slightly different thing, but for me is hard to understand people who want to delete them, especially prominent uploaders - uploading sometimes takes a lot of time and it’s sad to see all the effort suddenly ‘reversed’ as observations disappear together with an account.
I think iNaturalist should remove the account deletion feature completely for the time being (especially when people started to delete their accounts or pushing others to do that since the recent blog post).
Before the anonymization feature is implemented, allow users to reach out by email over any concerns and if they really want their account gone. This way first of all you will still offer users an ability to somehow ‘delete’ the account and you will be able to change their mind or ask why they want to delete their account directly through support, perhaps prevent some prominent identifier/observer from suddenly disappearing.
4 Likes
Deleting an inaturalist account especially when very large amounts of ids and observations have been made is analogous to a carpenter retiring and uninstalling all their past work. Even if that involved structures which would collapse if certain elements removed.
Account deletion can be very destructive for the community, especially on specific taxa depending on the expertise of the person and what they did.
4 Likes
Aren’t carpenters usually acknowledged as professionals, and/or somehow paid (in money, food, whatever) for their good work?
(to people who fear losing all the “precious” data/info volunteered by others: it is possible to export snapshots of the current “state of affairs”)
1 Like
I reserve the right to delete my obs, my IDs, and my comments - if I so choose. That is, and was (when we signed up), how iNat works.
2 Likes
As far as I understand this feature request would still let you do that, but also provide some less harsh options.
2 Likes
A week or two - WAIT - I have changed my mind - would be a good start.
Buyer’s remorse kicking in.
1 Like
The analogy isnt perfect.
Heres another one. Imagine somebody who has been volunteering with a nature center to help plant trees in their community for 5 years. In that time of 100s of volunteer hours, they planted 1000 trees.
Now they decide they are done, and rip up all the trees they planted.
The point is that people deleting their data can have a large impact on others.
5 Likes
Not sure where we’re headed with such digital-info-as-material-good analogies. (I know I’d be p*ssed if I donated my own saplings to a rewilding non-profit, then watch them used as paper pulp for some greenwashing stunt by Ikea Megacorp ;))
Since it is definitely impactful and detrimental to the community, it is not immensely difficult to add various clauses to the ToS/ToU and have users transfer/renounce some more rights to the contents they contribute - in order to prevent erasure or for any other sensible reason. Researchers/civil servants do it already, among others. If the change is worded clearly, and advertised before-the-fact, no big drama to expect.
1 Like
It makes sense for individual observations (withdrawing or removing an ID), e.g. when you decided the existing ID was incorrect or not fitting.
But on a large scale, I can’t imagine a prominent identifier thinking ‘all my IDs are bad, I should delete my account and get rid of them’. I think it involves rather different kinds of issues the user was facing prior to account deletion
I hugely doubt that any of the rage-quitters think that. Removing their IDs is part of the ‘revenge’. There have been a few forum posts mourning the loss of a prominent identifier.
Some identifiers remain, unhappily, here.
https://www.inaturalist.org/journal/joe_fish/74452-taxonomy-strike
Written in January 2023. Comments continue across the 2 intervening years.
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/the-vanishing-of-a-fellow-inatter/38221
2 Likes
They are taking their “revenge” on people who had nothing to do with their grievance.
2 Likes
Maybe a bit harsh to imply that identifiers taking action are deliberately harming others. Might simply be an unfortunate but unavoidable side-effect of the only option they (think they) have to alleviate a dire/broken situation.
tw self-harm analogy
As with a suicidal person, if you will. Hurts the family, sure… but that’s a secondary issue.
The iNat crew/iNat members are of course free to consider unfair, mean, vindictive any disgruntled/unhappy identifier who leaves / stops IDing / removes IDs… However, I doubt coercing/shaming unhappy identifiers into identifying – or depriving them of all or part of their agency – will work. Good luck with that anyway.
2 Likes
It doesn’t matter.
If someone burns down an apartment complex because they have a greivance against the architect, they may not have intentionally harmed the tenants, but said tenants still have the right to demand restitution.
1 Like
So… how much should I repay iNaturalist (or other members?) for leaving the site with my data, and thus depriving them forever of my past and future obs and IDs? Calculated from iNat’s worth, what is the current valuation of an obs/ID/membership?
Looks more and more like a giant trap - “all your data are belong to us”
1 Like
If this feature request is implemented, that question will not be necessary. 100 votes so far…
1 Like
But the consensus is vehemently against anonymisation here
?
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/what-is-this-inaturalist-and-generative-ai/66140/630
I wonder whether they’ll also disable the mechanism to delete/edit ids, comments, obs, and photos in full, or else “anal-retentive” (quote) members could still blank/remove – tediously – whatever content was offered by them to The Community. Maybe implement a paying scheme as a barrier to unruly members? Anonymize free users from the get-go, but offer additional capabilities (e.g. custom username/attribution, option to license/manage one’s content differently) with each donation level? of course the perks would revert if the donation stops. Various image galleries and community platforms work like this more or less.