With respect, you keep quoting out of context. Your comment about “you will never again see an aphid and think of it as an unknown” was part of a larger comment about what “learning about an organism” means and recognizing it when encountering it again in the future as a result of feedback provided by identifiers. I responded to it as such. Nowhere was there any reason to think that you were actually talking about how one reacts to disagreeing IDs (someone IDing an unknown as an aphid does not imply disagreement).
For what it’s worth, the situation I was thinking of when I mentioned disagreements is as Marina described – a disagreement with a species-level ID by another user on an observation I was only able to ID at a higher level. In such a case, I am not simply going to agree with the ID of the user I think is more likely to be correct if I’m not capable of deriving that ID myself. I might try to start a discussion, either to encourage the other user to withdraw or acquire the knowledge to confidently provide that ID myself, but this may not always be successful.
Or there is the observation I have where this user disagreed with my species-level ID and I withdrew my own ID in response, because I suspected they were correct, but I did not confirm the new ID because I find amaranth utterly mystifying. Which resulted in my observation becoming “unknown” without me realizing it once the person deleted their account.
The repercussions of the lost information due to another user deleting their account are not something I can completely control or prevent. Nor are we notified about it when it happens. Furthermore, a major identifier deleting their account should not be an expected occurrence that we have to take precautions against. It doesn’t have anything to do with failing to learn or failing to take responsibility for my observations. Please stop implying this is somehow the fault of the observers who are affected.