I would just like to offer, if I may, a different perspective on the concept of “wild places” and the aims and goals of iNat. “Wild places” are everywhere and nowhere. They are an abstract idealisation of something which in reality a continuum, with nowhere left on earth 100% wild, and virtually nowhere 100% non-wild either. More to the point, there is no non-arbitrary place to draw the line. I suggest that iNat should be more about documenting the biosphere as it actually is, in which case there is nothing at all special or significant about “wild in an urban place”, it is just another somewhat vague description of part of the biosphere. Clearly the interior of the Amazon is more wild that the burbs of LA, but both are of equal relevance to documenting the biosphere. Both are wild to some extent (not just because of wild parties in LA!) So although @tiwane is correct to be encouraging users to look in the less wild places, he is somewhat negating that by trying to maintain a robust distinction between wild and non-wild organisms, downgrading the status of the latter. The linked definition of wild vs. captive/cultivated is a bit cringeworthy and doesn’t provide a robust distinction. For a start, I really don’t think that plants can be said to have intentions! “Likewise, wild / naturalized organisms exist in particular times and places because they intended to do so”. Even “because humans intended it to be then and there” is problematic. What about a case where you buy a packet of seeds and one sticks to you, without your knowledge, and you inadvertently transport it somewhere where it falls off and grows into a plant? The plant isn’t there because anyone intended it to be there, yet I’m really pushed to call it wild! What if a planted tree gets washed away in a flood and keeps growing at a new location? The plant isn’t there because anyone intended it to be there, yet I’m really pushed to call it wild!