I am a relatively new user and a lover of wildlife as well as wildlife photography. I am not a trained biologist (I am an oncologist actually) but I thought I knew a little bit about the species I run into frequently and on the basis of that I have tried ID-ing a few observations. However once the specialists add their ID I have found that I have very often been wrong (e.g. confusing closely related species that I never knew about) and even completely wrong (e.g. wrong genus and in one case wrong phylum). This has been a real eye-opener for me, and I realised that I wasn’t being helpful at all.
I now mainly stick to trying to ID my own observations, and I tend to keep to the level of generality where I am reasonably sure (even if this is only “fungi”). I do use the system’s suggested ID as a starting point, but I see that it regularly offers suggestions of species that have not previously been recorded in my locality. Having said that, something that has been ID’d nearby might be from someone else accepting the suggestion of an exotic species, so even that isn’t necessarily reliable, and conversely species can extend their range, or are sometimes sighted well out of it (or escape from captivity).
My point is that people are much more likely to be mistaken than malicious, and indeed they may well be miffed at being put right since they think themselves to be experts because they watch wildlife TV programmes, subscribe to wildlife magazines and look at Web sites, unaware that there are professionals who devote their careers to a single area and have access to DNA analysis, electron microscopy, preserved and captive specimens and whose expertise is on a completely different level. There is something called the Dunning-Kruger effect whereby the less you know about something the more you tend to overestimate your level of competence in that area, or as Shakespeare put it “The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knoweth that he is but a fool” (I think this is from King Lear).