Reliable sources for common names on iNaturalist

[bobby23]

@bouteloua

Wikidata isn’t vetted nearly as much as Wikipedia and in most cases the names aren’t sourced, so I personally wouldn’t use [Wikidata] on a daily basis as source for common names

As someone who has added many common names to the site, I am unsure of how important that is. Our policy on Common Names currently says,

@Guidelines on Adding Names

Try to add names that have been used elsewhere. Please don’t invent new names.

I feel like the language used here is intentionally vague. What counts as “elsewhere”? Is it broad or narrow? For example, does “elsewhere” need to be an accredited guidebook or can it be a online forum community? Can it be a trade name? Must the attributed “author” from “elsewhere” be an expert in the field or can they be an amateur? Some arguments I have seen on iNat dance around these ideas and I think a Guideline revision would be helpful. However, I will say that these arguments seem to be circular. Truly common names are not determined by experts, they are determined by communities of people. Even supposedly “trustworthy” sources make them up themselves. Consider this quote from A Field Guide to Spiders of Australia (2017) by Robert Whyte and Greg Anderson:

@Whyte and Anderson (2017)

Unlike scientific names, common names are not bound by any rules. Birds and butterflies, being so popular and well documented, have reliable common names, but not [unpopular species like] spiders. Authors sometimes specify official common names when describing [new species], but this has begun to happen only recently.
Common names usually arise in a community, then become widely accepted, rather like new words entering the language on the street… This book uses well-known common names, but where they do not exist new ones have been created based on the principle that a useful common name should be simple and memorable and an obvious fit for the [species].
It seems reasonable to assume that for common names to be successful they should be relatively easy to remember, descriptive if possible, and defensible. In other words, they should seem reasonable. They may not survive, but that’s life. There is nothing to stop you choosing your own common name, especially if you find any particular suggestion doesn’t appeal to you.

If experts in the field adopt this loose philosophy on common names, and iNaturalist policy is intentionally vague, how important is it that Wikidata does not reliably source its pool of common names?

EDIT: As Cassi has clarified with me in private, there are issues with Wikidata where actively-used common names are sometimes removed because they are taxonomically “incorrect” (whatever that means - common names should be at least partially independent from the scientific nomenclature. It’s a shame some users on Wikidata feel differently.) I guess there’s even more to consider about common names that I was unaware of.