This topic was automatically opened after 62 minutes.
Welcome back, everyone. This topic will stay open, but unlisted so as not to attract undue attention to a conversation that has gone awry.
Speaking personally, and not as a moderator, I think that iNat has great value both as a place to aggregate scientific data, and as a social website. It is rare that those two halves come into conflict, but at times they do.
This is separate from the fact that civility and kindness are expected from all users at all times. People make mistakes. The important thing is to learn and to do better the next time.
2 Likes
These are worthwile reads for all people that deny this platforms’ role on science:
https://www.calacademy.org/press/releases/california-academy-of-sciences-acquires-inaturalist
https://www.inaturalist.org/pages/partners
Time to let go of this idea of iNaturalist being a social network or “just a college summer project” or just for the casual user.
This thing is real and it has gone mainstream. Value it for what it is. The platform itself will tell everyone what it wants to be. Stop trying to restrain it.
1 Like
I suggest you read the initial observation. Your comment: “Author and others said it’s a continuing bird with more photos proving their id and somewhere in recommendations it’s said observer saw more than we can and can know more than a photo shows.”
In point of fact, that additional information was NOT provided (including vocalization information) until after the conversation had already gone astray. That lack of information was what led me down that primrose path:-)
I took the link out of the first post, for the reason I described there:
“links to such observations usually escalate conflict”.
Sorry. I know it’s harder to have a conversation with only partial context, but general practice here is to avoid linking to examples of negative behaviour.
1 Like
It was provided anyway, I won’t judge now how fast it’d be added in other ways of things going.
1 Like
I’m confused. I’m being criticized for over-reacting (which is probably true, and for which I apologize), yet you and others keep pointing out that the information was, indeed in the thread. But that additional information was not in the thread at the time I reacted the way I did.
1 Like
Hey all. Since there seems to be little discussion of the original topic, and continued tension, I’m going to close the thread again. I think that at this point, it would be best for all parties to own up to any mistakes they have made and to move on to do better.
Jim, thanks for asking your question. After I close the thread I’ll link to a few other topics where that balance has been discussed, so you can all read and comment there.
1 Like
For those who want to see a very positive, kind discussion of a somewhat different kind of diversity (rather than amateurs and specialists), check out the Neurodiversity and iNaturalist! thread.
For a laugh, check out this fantastic thread on You know you’re seriously into iNat when…
On expertise on iNaturalist, two somewhat contrasting threads:
What does it mean to be an expert?
Why not empower recognised experts?
On identifications and etiquette on iNat:
Identification Etiquette on iNaturalist - Wiki
An ode to the overworked identifier (with gratitude and apology)
I hope that’s enough reading for all of you ;)
If you feel you have something novel to say (these are long threads!) but a thread is locked, send a message to a moderator to request it be opened.
3 Likes