If splitting taxonomy curation and moderation are planned for future implementation (as was mentioned by staff in the response to your feature request submission), it would make sense to and I would support the remainder* of my current feature request being discussed here to be postponed until then.
*to be clear, as my currently stands (partially implemented):
I think it would be better to reapprove a large batch of curators to do the actions they are actually interested in and have the background for than to potentially give them all the same set of tools immediately. I also think itās a bit presumptuous to think the process would be simple or ridiculous to intentionally postpone given those considerations and available staff time for application review alone.
Coincidentally, I had been thinking about this. It seems to me that the skills needed for good moderation (which is tremendously important!) are different from those of identification and curation and might be more widely available to be hired. Perhaps splitting could reduce pressure on curators, at least the curators that prefer not to have both roles.
I hope our social moderators will be active iNatters. Paid moderators deal with porn and violence - which I fervently hope is not a burden on our moderators here. Managing iNatās netiquette is a focused skill set.
I think this curator issue is not of high priority. What would iNat gain if inactive curators are removed? Curator status after all does not come with any priviledges?
Rather put all time and energy in making the curation process easier - there have been some cool suggestions, please consider these.
What? Curator status comes with all sorts of powers regular users donāt have. Most note worthy, being able to change taxonomy and suspend accounts. This is a privilege, and curator status can be removed if a user does not respect it, for example purposefully misusing powers.
Curators have the ability to make a great many changes which could be extremely disruptive if used in bad faith. Every additional account with these higher permissions increases the chances that someone with bad intentions will be able to access these permissions.
For active curators, the benefits of the work the curator does far outweighs the risk of unauthorized account access, but for inactive ones, it is only additional risk without any benefits.
All true - but these curators have been appointed by fellow curators and that is probably as good as the current process re trustworthy. iNat is not an organization where one would expect taxonomy terrorists to infiltrate as sleeper agents.
BTW: I think if more curators are required, appointment upon proposal or invitation of curator or senior members would be desiderable - who else than the people who deal with flags, consult fellow members and see who puts up flags or provides input etc would be able to predict that a person may be a good curator.
I donāt think that thereās a major concern with inactive curators doing something bad with their curatorial powers - these curators are, by definition, inactive and have been so, likely for a long time. I think thereās a much greater chance of active curators doing something unproductive with their powers. By the same token, however, I donāt think thereās likely to be much harm in removing curator status from long-inactive curators. Again, by definition, they havenāt used their curatorial powers. As such, I really donāt think that it matters too much what happens with inactive curators, and I donāt think it needs to be a high priority.
Also, there definitely have been people added as curators in the past who should not have been. The current process of vetting is much better than the previous/original one. I think the request is particularly relevant in this respect if curatorial powers are ever split (e.g., taxonomic/moderating magisteria). If thatās ever implemented (which I would support), then all curators would presumably need to go through some process to determine which of those spheres they would have powers in. At that time, it would make sense to go through inactive curators as part of that process and they could either be ādeaccessionedā or re-up their status.
Given how many curators Iāve seen get suspended or demoted in my time on this site I donāt think this is necessarily true. There have been one or two who were caught falsifying tens of thousands of observations. I donāt know if those users ever promoted anyone else, but I certainly wouldnāt trust their judgement on anyoneās trustworthiness!
But also, thereās the issue of unauthorized account access - why have a potential security hole sitting around in the form of long-dormant accounts, when you could quite simply close it?
Plus, if a legitimate curator is returning after a many-year absence, the rules and protocols have changed so much that they would be have to re-familiarize themselves from basics, so why not make them re-apply with a standardized application? I donāt really see a downside.
Currently, 52 votes disagree with the perceived irrelevance. Several useful viewpoints and reasoning have been stated above.
Whatās most on my mind here is about showing respect to those who have made valuable contributions, and efforts to various degrees. I found it interesting to see the linked forum thread above where several of the curators with many recorded actions were concerned theyāre not even being shown on the listings. Itās same currently for Kitty12 who currently i donāt see listed. Yet has contributed massively. Whereās the respect and acknowledgement? Why should that listing (however built) instead be displaying a multitude who seemingly have not done any of the specified curation activity? I feel it greatly devalues those who do or did contribute.
When i voted on this issue sometime now in the distant past, i wasnāt in favor of eliminating all curators, but rather hopeful for some intermediate strategy towards revision. Iām glad in a recent reply above that bouteloua also seems to favor instead an easier implementation, e.g. to retain those who have been active recently - and iād say even those with just a handful of relatively recent contributions. Anything positive helps right? It does however seem a great opportunity to make more of a subdivision of taxonomy versus moderation, but of course with some most useful folk who are willing to contribute on both sides.
Changing the theme. Somewhere in this forum, i had floated idea for some folks to instead getting pointed towards an advisory role for the taxonomy side. Here i was thinking of a way to engage some of the more experienced active users without any desire for practical curation, and was focused on the taxonomy specialists, e.g. highlighting some as taxon advisors. Really all that might mean practically is they state an open willingness (or desire) to contacted about issues that appear to be in their sphere of expertise/interest, and ideally the system help clarify what their āsphereā of influence is! Some of you may have seen me attempting to resolve neglected flags on diverse lineages of various arthropods. Iād often love to know which of various specialists who are using iNat would be willing to engage in helping resolve certain taxon flags. I just donāt feel that taxon curators are being adequately supported by tools to highlight WHO else on system might be ideal to talk to (when attempting to resolve flags). We can sift through ātop identifiersā and such, but i hope we all recognise that the most informed people (even if active iNat users) are not necessarily amongst the top observers, nor even amongst top identifeers. Anyway, iāve digressed into this to make the point that IF any 'inactive curators" were ever re-contacted about roles, then i suspect many of them were either once recommended by someone, or decided they themselves had merit when they applied. Thereās an opportunity then with re-engagement to ask about role they might play, but also for those on the taxonomy side to ask about their focus or āsphereā, e.g. āwhat taxa?ā It really could be as simple as any of the 12 broad categories which each already have a little icon for major lineages. More than one should be possible, Iād choose āArachnidsā and āInsectsā. Any folk interested in the groups not directly represented, e.g. Myriapods would have to pick from those or none - what we Brits called āHobsonās choiceā. Really, iām mentioning those 12 categories, as those little icons can be something of an aid for users (and other curators) to identify specialism of curators.
I think ādeaccessioningā refers to removing an item from a museumās collection. As opposed to āaccessioningā, which refers to adding an item to the collection.
Maybe this is common knowledge in the world of museums and collections, but this is the first time (as far as I know) that Iāve encountered this term.
(sorry)