I will never consider a plant that a modern human planted as “wild”, even if it is a of a native species planted 200 years ago, in its natural habitat, and in its natural range. I believe the definition of “wild” is that which the forces of nature put where it is, and not that which modern humans put where it is. I also believe Homo sapiens was both “wild” and “natural”, and a “native species” where we lived before the first agriculturalists lived. I believe that the allegorical tale of Able, and Cain, told of this change away from us being “wild”, and from our work being “natural”, after agriculture, as well as telling of the degradation of the natural beauty and biodiversity of the planet after that. It also tells of the degradation of the quality of life for many humans after that, and before what I have dubbed “C-evilization”. If a plant were moved to a new place by a human, 50,000 years ago, before the first domestication of the first animal (widely thought to be the dog), and before shepherding and farming started changing the world, leading to a monetary system that I believe changed it more, I might count that plant moved to that new place by that early human as “natural”, and “wild”.
While a whole species can’t be considered “native” in a place they only got to because modern humans brought them there, members of a species introduced into new areas by modern humans, species that are naturalized, that is they have established self-sustaining populations there, after modern humans brought them there, can be considered “wild” there. It is the forces of nature that allowed those naturalized species to spread, and establish those populations in those new areas. While those species that were introduced into a new area by modern humans, and became naturalized there, remain “introduced”, “non-native”, or “alien” there, their members can now be called “wild” there. For these introduced species iNaturalist has an exclamation mark, if someone adds a note to the checklist for that area, that it was introduced there by modern humans.
Just as members of an introduced, and naturalized, species can be called “wild”, because they spread to where they are by the forces of nature, it is understandable that iNaturalist would call “wild” the offspring of a human planted plant, offspring that the forces of nature allowed to be moved to where they are now, and to grow where they are now. If it wasn’t the first self-seeded plant that iNaturalist considered “wild”, where should they draw the line, and how is anyone likely to know, if that line were set at a different point.
That said, I might consider the naturally spreading descendants of a human planted plant, “more natural”, and more “wild”, with every generation they reproduced there, and spread from there, without any additional help from humans. In my efforts towards “re-wilding”, I have focused on using more rapidly reproducing plants, such as annuals, and biennials, so the surface planted by the parent plants, with their descendants, can be more “wild”, more quickly, and that surface area can grow more quickly. At the same time, the early death of the annuals and biennials I planted, will allow that surface area to be covered with “wild” plants more quickly.
When I see a dot on an iNaturalist map that is treated as “wild” I want to know that it was the work of the forces of nature that put that plant, animal, or fungus there. I don’t want to think it was put there by the work of modern humans.