Extreme instances make useful examples because the contrasts are sharp and the logic is clear, not because the logic is flawed. Part of the confusion in question is the inconsistency of the perceived meanings of captive and cultivated, at least for some users, and clear examples of breakdowns in the system are informative. People are trying to understand the rules, live by the rules and contribute to thinking about how things could work better and part of that conversation is about whether we all understand and agree on what the rules are, including rules defining where the edges are.
The point of iNat is learning about biodiversity and discussing what wild means is a legitimate part of that conversation. If definitions are inconsistent or fail to account for the observed range of phenomena then that is worth knowing.
Call up a list of observations for Garden Tulips in North America and check the wild/cultivated status. I stopped after the first 20 and all showed as wild, including at least 2 that were clearly indoors and may have been cut flowers. I recently received a notification of an observation by a prolific, competent observer for another species in New York’s Central Park which made note of the fact that it had been planted and mulched but was not checked as cultivated. Are there metrics on how “fine” it is working? I expect that there’s a significant amount of stuff misassigned either by poor understanding or failure to complete the forms and that clearer interfaces would reduce that.
Even without the metaphysical issues regarding whether the word intent means anything when applied to a fern, this description is not terribly helpful. The birch tree described by @bobby23 did not “intend” to be in the middle of a manicured suburban lawn, which is the “there” that was imposed on it by humans without its position shifting at all.
Sure. That works.
Use the current interface and change the wording to “Organism is not wild.” It will mess with the neatness of the column of checkmarks but does anybody care?
On the other hand, the current system uses a de facto checkmark in wild and nobody has a problem with that. I understand the UI thinking but it gets a tad dogmatic when possible solutions are abandoned to protect the prevailing orthodoxy. If “good enough” is an acceptable standard for definitions of wildness its good enough for UI.
OK.
And to end by going off topic, wildness is a cultural concept, not a scientific phenomenon and the particular notion of wildness we’re talking about is a post Industrial Revolution European idea. I’ve been thinking about a recent topic in which the idea of better incorporating Indigenous conventions into iNat was discussed and wondering how that would work in the context of this topic. The concept of wildness used in iNat is inconsistent with the perspectives of many cultures, particularly Indigenous cultures in which the natural world is not seen as external to the human world - a perspective that is essentially ecosystem based. I get the need for consistent data but if the objective is to extend the iNat project to new people around the world it would be wise to think about the cultural assumptions that are built into its structures and definitions.