Rather false data on a planted/escaped population as wild, than false data on a wild/escaped species as planted.
Marking as planted has a second problem, which is why I tend not to mark my planted observations until it is Research Grade. And that is that it goes out of the ID stream and tends to languish either as incompletely identified, or as unverified.
Which for a species in the early stages of invasion can be an issue. The iNat default of marking an observation as “planted” is a nuisance, as one is not alerted to this fact: it is entirely surreptitious. At the very least a comment should be posted to the effect that the observation has been marked as planted - allowing the observer to be aware of the fact and switch it off if necessary.
In southern Africa we have lots of invasives, and I have to update the alien list several times a week with species recorded as newly wild (https://www.inaturalist.org/check_lists/664678-Southern-Africa-Check-List?q=&view=photo&observed=any&establishment_means=introduced&occurrence_status=any&rank=all&commit=Filter). This shows up as the icons on the observations, and the species summaries.
We also have projects, that any user with more than 100 observations is invited to join, so that they automatically displays on their alien observations:
And we also have the project
for new species and new populations.
From the education and information viewpoint, we also have an issue in that most people regard aliens as a national issue, whereas in the Cape Flora, we have invasives and hybridizing aliens arising from adjacent centres of endemism, which may be a mere 40km away, but which contain different floras, and sister species. Whereas it is “relatively” easy to restrict movement of aliens into a country, and to get people to appreciate the problems and help control them, it is nigh impossible when the alien invasives can occur naturally within a magisterial district literally “over the hill”.
Any scientist using any data they did not collect, without carefully scrutinizing and checking it is going to be severely embarrassed, either during review or after publication. No aspiring scientist stupid enough to take data at face value once, will ever repeat their mistake.
The difficulty I find is getting researchers to annotate the data on iNaturalist, rather than only in their own private or institutional databases. I feel researchers should put value back into the data they extract, rather than merely use it.