I just read a huge comment thread on iNaturalist. There is a basic internal conflict in iNaturalist, which I currently see expressed in three ways: Engagement vs Data Observers vs Identifiers Moderation (play nice) vs Curation (taxonomy) I actually see all of this as more of a feature than a bug,…

[image] AdamWargon: Moderation (play nice) vs Curation (taxonomy) I can’t help but feel that this is a real issue. Which is funny, because it is the curators who are also tasked with moderation, to a great extent. One of my particular gripes is that appalling behaviour appears to be frequent…

[image] mftasp: appalling behaviour I guess I’m lucky. I’ve never seen any appalling behavior. I did once get a hectoring (and undeserved) comment, but it fell far short of egregious and certainly didn’t warrant any action from a curator.

Not Citizen Science – iNaturalist differs from many similar citizen science projects in several ways. Traditionally, citizen science projects have generally involved scientists recruiting non-scientists in an effort to collect research data and provide opportunities for the public to engage in sc…

[image] jnstuart: Even a physical museum collection has specimens that remain unIDed or only coarsely IDed. I’ve seen some pretty bad museum specimens that perhaps did not deserve to be curated. DNA barcoding?

[image] stockslager: iNaturalist encourages data contribution through the self-interest of an avid hobbyist, This describes why I started and continue to use iNaturalist. I love the collection aspect and enjoy ticking observations into a higher level of identification, be it from unknown to …

[image] mftasp: this is a real issue [image] Remove all curators and start from scratch I’m working on a spec for splitting the duties of a curator into curator and moderator (with taxonomic and community responsibilities, respectively - and one could have both) That comment from tiwane…

Unlikely to get implemented in a timely and efficient fashion, for it has no bearing on “data contributors” (a.k.a. “users”) or the platform. iNat stands out among other “naturalist platforms” by its little policing of contributors or control over their production (save for a few legal requirements,…

[image] vbjanos: The influx of new and casual users means the original optimistic notion that all observations will become RG at taxa or at higher level is no longer tenable. The shortcomings, I think, are of a system pushed by rapid, exponential growth in volumes. I don’t see that as a shor…

[image] ShotShot: self-organize and self-regulate, devising their own collective behavior and rules of the anthill along the way, with as little interference as possible. I think it feels this way because of some of the freedom offered to users (that usually isn’t). Like with observation fie…

My last words are a variation of ‘Let’s agree to disagree’. I think discussions need closure even if resolution is not forthcoming.

Inherent conflicts on iNaturalist

General

DianaStuder March 28, 2025, 8:46am 25

That comment from tiwane was March 2019.

Topic		Replies	Views
Overzealous Identification General question	113	15664	September 6, 2019
What iNaturalist is for General	49	6835	September 7, 2019
Paper about inaturalist The benefits of contributing to the citizen science platform iNaturalist as an identifier General	67	4102	January 8, 2023
Observers deleting observations when identifiers disagree with them General	125	3807	October 27, 2024
iNaturalist's secret to success: What did iNat do differently? (if anything) General	52	1912	October 27, 2024

Inherent conflicts on iNaturalist

Related topics