A situation has come up that doesn’t sit well with me, so I’ll bring it up here.
A regular user mistook something about an observation and entered a wrong ID on someone else’s observation. Aside from being wrong there was no sign that this was malicious in any sense. The observer, who is also a curator, then went ahead and hid the wrong ID. To be fair this happened after some time, and attempts at contacting the identifier.
Still, the observer/curator used their privileges to manage their own observation in a way that any other user cannot. What do people think?
I think this specific case is a gray area better taken up with staff than the forum, though perhaps laying out a clearer table of what constitutes ‘intentionally inaccurate’ that we could link in future discussions would be helpful.
I have seen the observation and flag in question and I agree with you. I think the curator in question should not have hidden the ID (which I said under the flag) and I think it worrying that they did so anyway despite multiple others saying not to
Staff reads the forums, too, and I’d rather have this in the open than on a flag that most users won’t see. Ultimately it would be good if this kind of situation could be clarified in the curator guide.
(There’s a few IDs on my observations that I’ve been itching to hide. Not really, but if we all decide it’s cool then I just might.)
disclaimer : I’m no curator, just a regular user and I have no idea what is the specific obs’ that leaded to the begining of this thread.
my opinion : I think if there is a previous contact from the curator to an other identifier to say that the proposed ID is wrong and explaining why, but the user don’t take it’s ID back nor answer to explain it’s own view, then I see no reason the curator should restrain himself from hiding the wrong ID.
In my point of view, when there is place for contradictory and constructive discussion on concrete identifying features, and one of the parties don’t want to engage in the conversation, then for me it’s the actual work of a curator to clean out wrong IDs, so I would have no problem with that.
Of course that would be a totally distinct case if the user would have engaged in the conversation, told its views on why he suggested its ID and refuse to take its ID back. In such case it would’nt feel fair if the curator use its privilege to clean the ID.
I hope these thought can bring something constructive to this conversation.
good evening (and forgive my poor english)
I understand the thought process that lead to it being hidden, but don’t think it was necessary.
A better solution, and one that most all other users (curators included) typically take is tagging other users to provide an agreeing ID. Hiding seems like a last resort, and less severe actions should be attempted before going that route. Which is partly out of fairness for other users that aren’t curators and can’t just hide an ID if it’s not for the focus of an observation.
I think consulting other curators would’ve been useful. I myself would be nervous to hide an ID like this on my own observations for the reason that this post was even made : I think I’d get some people who disagree with me. If others see it as unfair, I don’t want to be the one making an unfair decision, seemingly for my own benefit.
If most people think it’s fine to do, okay, I have no major objections. I just think since it’s unclear and ambiguous, it would show some courtesy and consideration if it was discussed prior to making the call to hide it. It seems a little bold and harsh to me, so I would want to run it by others before doing it.
I had a somewhat similar situation, in which a user had made a number of very inaccurate IDs due to relying on CV. After they were suspended by staff for this, I asked about hiding their IDs where necessary, and was told directly by staff not to.
The forum is not meant for specific cases, so I will only talk about the general principle here
I think it is important that curators can remove harassment, insults and other malicious content on their own observation, for example if someone decides to add an intentionally wrong ID on a curator’s obs as retaliation for having their content hidden. So I don’t think there should be a rule that curators cannot remove rule breaking content on there own obs
That said, IDs can only be hidden if they are intentionally incorrect, not just erroneous, so if a curator hid an ID that was not intentionally wrong then they abused their power regardless of whether it was on their observation or someone else’s
More broadly, I think a lot of it is situational. If someone writes hate speech, makes a hateful/racist/sexist ID, or posts something pornographic on a curator’s observation, that curator is likely to be the first person to know about it and I think it’s fine to hide. So there shouldn’t be a blanket restriction.
I struggle with that logic. When I want to check their profile - where are you, what taxa are you interested in, how do I evaluate your ID - I get this User is Suspended.
But their IDs and annotations remain. For ever.
People get suspended for misconduct that is unrelated to the accuracy of their IDs, for example someone who is knowledgeable about a taxon but gets into fights with others
To be clear, we aren’t talking about a case like this. By the current rules, we are unquestionably not allowed to hide an ID that is unintentionally wrong, no matter how obviously wrong it is. unintentionally wrong IDs are, for curators and regular users, in the realm of having a conversation with them, either in comments or messages.
In this case, we are talking about an ID that does appear intentionally incorrect, but with the issues:
1.) It may or may not have actually been made in bad faith (as opposed to confusion about expectations for IDers), and is not a case we have typically been using hiding to handle.
2.) The violation of the common law principle that ‘No one should be the judge in their own case’, which I think we now explicitly respect for resolving flags, and which most people find intuitive in general
For point 1, I think some of the concern being expressed here is less about the decision to hide in this particular case, and more whether it represents a slippery slope towards hiding in more questionable cases. This is why I said it would be helpful to have a clearer policy document to link to, and it sounds like staff is amenable to producing such a document if it does become a problem.
For point 2, as tiwane said above, there are cases like harassment where it could be necessary or at least not harmful. However in cases where the necessity/urgency is questionable, I think we should maintain a clear preference for other curators/staff handling matters on our own content when possible.
thank you for this clarification. I think that conversation goes far beyond what I had expected. Without experience in such cases, I won’t say any more in that subject.
But it’s nice to see such debates going on here : it’s a good sign of responsible and transparent management of the site and the community.
thank you to all the site staff
I have seen the observation and flag in question and I totally disagree : the misidentification was clearly intentional, and the user has not responded to comments and messages (apparently for years).
The curator has open a flag before hiding the misidentification. Other curators and staff agreed that it should be hidden.
Well, even though we all tend to consider who made an ID as part of deciding how much to trust that ID, iNat really doesn’t prioritize anyone’s authority (although leader boards and bios give us some clues).
For non-hidden IDs by a suspended user, I think we can still make our own judgement based on the photo and sound evidence. If the user’s IDs were wrong but not obviously malicious, then it’s fine to seek additional IDs from people with relevant knowledge. Hiding the suspended user’s IDs isn’t necessary.
I agree that curators should not take action like this on their own observations or content, except in limited cases like those that @tiwane has outlined above. There have been noted instances in the past with curators abusing their powers on iNat when taking curatorial action on their own content and flags. This reduces faith in the curatorial system and leads to unnecessary conflict. It is easy enough (and generally quite quick in my experience) to tag in another curator to get an independent opinion and take action on the situation if necessary. Basically, I believe that the default approach should be that curators should not take curatorial action on their own content (ie, a privileged action that other non-curator users cannot take) unless there is a clear and present reason to do so.
Even more stringently, I think that curators should not suspend users where the suspendable offenses solely target the curator. For instance, in cases where a curator is targeted by another user and suspending that user might be justified, I think it is best for the targeted curator to ask another curator to adjudicate. A curator suspending another user who they were in a direct conflict with is a bad look (even if justified) and can give a bad impression to other users who may then fear interacting with curators or disagreeing with them more broadly. NB I don’t think principle this would apply to situations where a curator has given an official warning about a previous action to a user and then the warned user comes back at the curator with another suspendable offense (like an insult/harassment), essentially confirming that they should indeed be suspended. In that case, I think it would be fine for the curator to suspend.