Let’s say someone on iNaturalist has their own nickname or just translates a name from Latin to English and adds it as a name for a species on iNat. Both of those approaches tend to produce overly simple or convoluted or otherwise awkward names.
If someone else references that iNat name for a personal blog post or a Wikipedia article then I wouldn’t want to accept that circular source as evidence of the name being used “in the wild”.
On the other hand if an iNat user like @gcwarbler puts thought into good common names for his taxa of interest then I don’t really care where they get published; it’s probably beneficial for those species to have common names and I doubt anyone else is going to think of any better.
So my personal preference is subjective and contextual based on the quality of the name and its source, but that isn’t scalable. I don’t know if there needs to be clear standards about what sources work but I think it does depend on the quality of the source and how much fact-checking went into its production. Even published field guides might sometimes lump species together into vague categories, only list the scientific name of the most common, and label the whole group something vague that applies to all of them.
Generally when I’m searching for common names I’ll trust peer-reviewed articles, taxonomy databases (including BugGuide which tends to have some standards), field guides… beyond that it depends on how well I feel like the source is likely to represent a whole group of people vs. just one person who wanted to apply a label to this bug they found yesterday.