Hey all, my original vision (although that’s too highfalutin’ of a word) for the Wiki category was that topics would only pertain to using iNaturalist and perhaps how to do things in teh field, like survey fungi, etc.
@JeremyHussell added a really nice topic for identifying orbweavers which I think is great (I so often just see the undersides of these spiders!) but wanted to get feedback from everyone on how restrictive we want that category to be, especially when we add an ID help section to taxon pages on iNaturalist. I’d be worried that a lot of great ID/taxon info would be hidden among technical topics.
Either way, I think it would be good to establish what appropriate content looks like earlier rather than later for each category.
It’s hard to answer not knowing the capability or timelines to add something onto the site. I would rather see it there for many reasons (closer to related content, opens contributing to site users, at least in an easier way, larger audience given the site will always have greater numbers than this forum, less risk of it going away shoiuld this forum disappear etc).
But if adding something to the site is a longterm proposition, then here is better than nothing.
I don’t have a timeline but I don’t think any major changes to the site will happen until after City Nature Challenge, which finishes at the beginning of May.
I’ll be writing something about our post-retreat plans in a day or two (fingers crossed) in the News and Updates category that should have more details.
The usual advice for a newly started forum like this is to start with a few categories, and split them up only when they become too difficult to work with. So… keep an eye on the category, and split it into iNaturalist tutorials and naturalist tutorials when you feel it’s necessary? If there are less than 100 topics in the category, it should only be ~15min work for a Regular to manually re-categorize everything.