I’ve mentioned from time to time that scientists shouldn’t blindly use databases like GBIF (or even specific scientific museum databases like the Smithsonian) or iNaturalist data for research purposes. By blindly, I mean not verifying the accuracy of the identifications and not following up on outli…

I cannot imagine that curators and their staff update specimen labels. I curate our state bird collection, for the past 30 years. Years ago, I did try but we were quickly overwhelmed with taxonomic “updates”, thanks to the onslaught on genetic analyses being done. And ours is a modest collection - ~…

Lots of deviation from the topic. Trying to lump museum collections together and compare with iNat to determine which is most accurate isn’t the point. Museums vary wildly in their ability to curate their specimens (due to funding challenges). iNat observations vary wildly in accuracy of identificat…

This was and still is a huge thing that bothers me whenever I want to give an ID. I’d of course want to minimise errors while also giving proper IDs. For an example, recently I was trying to identify a butterfly of the Ypthima genus but was completely stumped on whether to go into half-guessing th…

I strongly agree. I regularly get in to ‘discussions’ in iNat based upon the ideas presented here. I even had a moderator tell me that iNat was a social platform first, and a scientific platform second (a statement that was subsequently withdrawn after I pursued it).

Sometimes geography matters a lot, but you have to know it without doubt. Satyrinae have a lot of very similar-looking species, even genus id is very helpful.

Don’t know what exactly was meant by social or why the statement might have been withdrawn but iNat is pretty clear about it’s priority being learning, not research. From the FAQ: What is iNaturalist? iNaturalist provides a place to record and organize nature findings, meet other nature enthusias…

Thankfully we can meet multiple objectives with the same tool: generating useful data for conservation and research may be a co-benefit, but its still an intended benefit. We can see that every time iNaturalist celebrates a scientific achievement derived from the community’s work. Another side of …

But isn’t it welcoming? People who are deleting any content they created (observations or ids) are really making bad for themselves more than anyone else, they spent their time for nothing. Forum has a lot of info for iders, there’re many topics that are chewing up why taxon experts are the most ne…

Beginning with your conclusion, [image] lera: it’d be nice to find ways to talk about the philosophy of iNat that is more welcoming of expert contribution. the idea that expert contribution is unwelcome is neither a logical consequence of iNat’s mission nor a fair characterization of argumen…

I have seen comments from the forum which criticise notions of expertise and minimise issues around data robustness reposted on other social media as examples of iNaturalist’s philosophy which actively make them not want to use the platform. So “more welcoming” dialogue around all this, as @lera sa…

The problem with blindly using biodiversity databases

Nature Talk

bouteloua February 19, 2021, 3:03pm 63

https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/recruiting-more-identifiers/2388/152 though I haven’t kept it updated

Topic		Replies	Views
Snubbing iNat data General	84	3369	February 6, 2026
What iNaturalist is for General	49	6598	September 7, 2019
Strengths and Weaknesses of iNaturalist Data General	57	10436	December 23, 2020
iNat data quality in comparison to 'expert knowledge' General	24	2502	February 23, 2023
Why not empower recognised experts? General	132	10165	August 3, 2020

The problem with blindly using biodiversity databases

Related topics