I’ve never understood the GBIF issue. Given the large number of observations of captive/cultivated specimens that aren’t marked captive/cultivated, does that render studies using GBIF data erroneous? Would the situation be any worse if GBIF users no longer had to factor in the numerous views of what, exactly, captive/cultivated means in the minds of iNat users? 3.6% of Canis familiaris in the U.S. are marked wild (RG)–I doubt these are actually wild animals. Same for Epipremnum aureum (the household Devil’s ivy)–it has 17% of observations marked as wild (RG) in the continental U.S. How are these erroneously designated observations handled by GBIF users if they don’t even know what criteria iNat users are using to make these decisions or even if such criteria are being applied or not?
I identify dozens of observations each day, and don’t know why I’d ever need to filter on captive/cultivated–but would be curious to learn more about the advantages of this.