Discussion of whether non-wild organisms should appear in the list of things that need ID or not here. (Result: not by default, but a filter to deliberately include non-wild organisms will be added to the identification page.)
Note that we already have a three-way distinction for wild vs. non-wild in the data quality assessment (DQA): observations are not considered wild by default, they begin unspecified. It’s just that most people don’t actively mark things as wild unless there’s a disagreement, and having unspecified wild/non-wild status does not prevent an observation from reaching “Research Grade”. Looks like I’m confused too.
The other factors Tony mentions are mixed together in the DQA, and together determine whether an observation is “Casual”, “Needs ID”, or “Research Grade”. By default, most factors are unspecified, and an observation is allowed to become “Research Grade” (or “Export Grade” in Tony’s system) as long as enough confirming identifications are made at the species level, a photo is included, and nobody explicitly marks anything else as disqualifying. Discussion of what should or should not disqualify an observation from reaching “Research Grade” should be done elsewhere. Here, we’re talking about whether there are better names than “Casual”, “Needs ID”, and “Research Grade”. (Better in the sense that they cause less confusion. There is definitely some confusion about what these things are.)