(reposted for clarification)
I use “opt out” to manage my own observations. I have some desire to keep my records consistent, and having everything changing is too tricky to keep up with, so this allows me to go through them one-by-one and “vet” the changes before agreeing to the updated ID.
I’ve been given a hard time by people, who accuse me of being arrogant and rejecting the “greater cause and promise of data quality”. Because, yes, I’m just one person and I can’t claim to have expertise everywhere. I’m always than open to correcting and adjusting my ID if rational evidence is provided. If I’m not adhering to community ID even after my “review”, then there’s always a good reason for it. Personally I do believe that data wise, opt-out is arguably negative on average. But in my case I’m very careful and I’m certain it actually provides a small benefit. There are a few cases where letting the community ID override would have kept incorrect IDs (from non-experts, mostly) at the forefront. Or cases where people commit to species without adequate evidence (e.g. “guessing” a species without reasoning).
But at no point am I letting “incorrect IDs” stay around, in my case.