Wikipedia is certainly more reliable than any social media site I’ve used, and I (and many other academics) routinely use Wikipedia for a first pass to learn about topics. I also refer my students to Wikipedia. Would I cite in in a scientific paper? Probably not, but I have seen it done when there was something specific to Wikipedia to cite. I think it is a perfectly reasonable general source, and it’s also transparent with edit logs, which most sources do not have.
In sum, I don’t think Wikipedia is infallible, but it’s a reasonable source someone might cite for including a common name, and I would never reject a common name out of hand for having Wikipedia provided as the only source on submission. Most common names submitted are likely correct/should not be removed.
On a related note, for many common names, especially in parts of the world with less coverage of guidebooks/scientific publications or easily accessible digital sources, like in languages with fewer users or users with less tech access, there often won’t be any easily citeable resources for common names. We want to make sure our system isn’t biased against adding common names from these languages/organisms, as they are often ones that will greatly increase iNat’s usability as it continues to grow.
I think it is important to clarify that this is Chris’s opinion, not iNat policy. I (and others) disagree with this approach in its entirety and it is not consistent with actual practice for many taxa. If this is OK, what do we do with waterthrushes that aren’t thrushes, sycamores that are maples, buffalo that are bison and the rest of the vast confusion that is vernacular nomenclature?
There is a tendency on iNat to generate policies (or quasi-policies) that end up being treated as vague guidelines. The policies on vernacular names are already heavily imbued with what can reasonably described as academic snobbery when it comes to new names. Allowing curators absolute discretion to exclude established common names because they think it might confuse the rubes is not OK.
I should note that a flag proposing a name change for the Bald-faced Hornet was just closed after extensive discussion, with the conclusion that the name should not be changed, despite the fact that it is not a true hornet. Taxonomic inaccuracy in common names should not be seen as automatic reason to delete them, in fact I think it is rare that a non-troll common name should be deleted without discussion