My iNat user name has been Botswanabugs because I’m interested in the insects of Botswana but should I consider changing it to my real name Tony_Benn1, so that the data I collect and submit may have more validity, acceptability and usefulness by the scientific community ?
Are there many ‘real’ scientists, rejecting iNaturalist, with the excuse that iNat data quality is poor because the real names of observers are not being used ? Would many of the real scientists be happier using iNat if all us observers used our real names, instead of ‘nicknames. as user names ? There is some illuminating research on this issue between 25 and 27 mins of this Youtube, ( if you don’t have time to watch the whole thing !).
I personally would recommend against changing your username, as it becomes confusing for other users who already know you by botswanabugs, and will break any existing hyperlinks where someone has tagged you in a comment
I don’t think that using your real name adds any additional validity or usefulness, and if you do want to ensure that your real name is included, there are other was of doing so.
In general it’s often not a good idea to use your real name on online forums and social sites. Sometimes it’s unavoidable though.
That is a personal decision. For women who build a professional reputation, then ‘take their partner’s name on marriage’ the decision is another layer of challenge. Lots of iNatters have a useful user name like yours, which is easy to remember. Scientists link to their orcid profile.
Just echoing what others have already said: In general it is usually a bad idea to use your real name on any online forums or social sites, especially as your username. If you do want to associate your real name with your account, however, the best way to do that is either in your profile bio or as your Display Name.
I also want to make the point that for many people, especially those who are queer, black, female, trans, etc., using our real names online simply is not an option due to the culture of hate and harassment that has sadly become pervasive on the internet these days. So I really hope that using your real name on iNaturalist is not necessary to have validity and acceptability from the scientific community.
As a non-scientist, my concern is whether there are a number of real scientists around the globe who reject the data quality of iNat observations, because real observer names are not being used. Here in Botswana there seems to be zero interest in iNaturalist by the real biologists, whether they are in universities, research or museums. Perhaps they are just too busy to take an interest in iNat or is it a form of snobbery ? How can barriers be broken so that the academically trained in Bots, see some value in iNat ? I guess real scientists use real names ! Do the real biologists in Australia prefer real user names ? @DianaStuder
I understand all the reasons for using a fanciful username. I don’t mind knowing others by their username, but I do consult the person’s profile and I strongly prefer those who give some indication of their background and expertise, so I know how to interface with them. I will say that in 12 years and 35K+ observations on iNaturalist, using my real (female) name as username, I have never had a negative interaction with anyone.
In my usage of iNat data and the usage I have seen from other scientists, users’ usernames have not been considered. iRecord seems to be an outlier in this regard (i.e., considering evidence as less valuable if a user’s real name is not included). You can see other forum posts on some of the issues iRecord has with ingesting iNat data. So, if you are in the UK and care about how your data is used by iRecord, you might want to consider using your real name (or telling UK recorders what the link between your real name and iNat username is). In the rest of the world, I don’t think it matters generally.
I concur with @thebeachcomber above that I wouldn’t change a username at this point unless you have a very strong reason to do so. It will confuse other iNat users and break links. Linking to your profile/changing display name should help users link your iNat profile to your real name if that is desired.
I haven’t seen any preference for using real names in the United States, at least in my northeastern corner of it. And like @janetwright, I haven’t had anything bad come of using my real name here or on iNaturalist. However, if I were a member of a persecuted group, like the ones @zygy mentions, or if I were a “cute young thing” and thus liable to sexual harassment, I might well use a pseudonym.
Back in the ‘nym wars on Google Plus. The people who insist in Real Names, forget that - just because the user is called John Smith, has a nice smile and a cute puppy / child, with a potted bio. Does not mean that any of that is true or factual. Give me a name I can remember (and type out for an @mention) and build a reputation on That Name.
For published research, describing a new species, academic rules would apply.
I have published extensively using iNaturalist data, and many of my colleagues do also; I have never encountered a case [in Australia] where a user’s data was rejected because of someone using a pseudonym. The only time I ever care about someone’s real name is if I’m acknowledging them in eg a photo caption, and if I don’t know their name I’ll send them a message asking if they’re comfortable sharing it with me. If not, I couldn’t care less what their username is.
I use my chosen nym “Thunderhead”. But legally, I prefer to copyright as my legal name, that was not chosen by me.
I think the data included with observations shouldn’t be dependent on user name, or status or education level. Research should be done on the basis of the observation.
It seems as well that in the UK if there wouldn’t be the name “issue” they would find another excuse as fast.
The trend everywhere is towards anonymity for data protection purposes as long as there is a traceability. The UK should look (perhaps they are) at enforcing scientific standards rather than tradition.
Perhaps the real issue is that iNaturalist is more amateur than the other channels they work with. So they have some reluctance towards its data quality.
Whether you use your real name of a pseudonym really isn’t going to matter to (the vast majority of) people who consider using iNaturalist data. Do what you want. If you want your real name available, you can put it in your profile.
As far as I am aware the UK is indeed an outlier in terms of the strict requirements of many data aggregators for each record to come with a ‘real name’. I believe this is a legacy which has stuck around from of our long tradition of recording before the days of photo-based recording – where verification relied on verifiers personally knowing and trusting the recorder. I hope this legacy is on its way out, but there is still an old guard ready to fight tooth and nail to defend it.
Some people have names that are common enough that it can be challenging to find an available user name based on one’s real name if one does not wish to adopt the rather impersonal-feeling formula of name + string of numbers.
It also means that use of a real name becomes less meaningful as a way of vouching for the authenticity of the data, if it could refer to any of a dozen people with that name.
I have occasionally wished that I had chosen something that projected a bit more professionalism than an inside joke based on a typo for “epiphany” (I don’t know, “blackbees” or something, given my interest in the genus Xylocopa), but I suspect it would cause too much confusion to change it now. I do provide my real name in my profile, which I have mixed feelings about because it is not a common name where I am currently living and thus perhaps makes me a bit more findable than would be desirable.
