Why I Left iNaturalist: A Developer's Perspective

A developer has announced their departure from iNaturalist, citing fundamental disagreements about the platform's direction and governance. The decision follows years of contributions to the citizen science project that collects biodiversity observations from around the world.

The departure highlights growing tensions between community-driven open data initiatives and institutional control. Key issues include concerns about data ownership, platform accessibility, and the balance between scientific rigor and community participation. The author emphasizes the importance of maintaining open, accessible platforms for biodiversity data while addressing the technical challenges of scaling such services.

This exit reflects broader questions about the future of citizen science platforms and their relationship with larger institutions. The piece serves as both a personal reflection and a cautionary tale about the challenges facing collaborative scientific platforms in the modern digital landscape.

The developer's involvement with iNaturalist began as an enthusiastic contributor to what they saw as a revolutionary platform for biodiversity data collection. Over the years, they participated in various capacities, from submitting observations to contributing code and participating in community discussions.

The platform's mission to create a global community of nature enthusiasts sharing observations resonated deeply. This citizen science approach promised to democratize biodiversity data collection, making it accessible to anyone with a smartphone and curiosity about the natural world.

Early successes included:

• Building a robust database of species observations
• Fostering international collaboration among researchers and amateurs
• Creating tools for data analysis and visualization
• Developing a mobile application that made species identification accessible

However, as the platform grew, so did the complexity of managing such a vast undertaking. The developer witnessed firsthand the challenges of balancing scientific accuracy with community engagement, and the difficulties of maintaining an open platform while securing necessary resources.

Several fundamental issues prompted the decision to leave iNaturalist. The most significant concern centered on data governance and who ultimately controls the valuable biodiversity information collected by millions of users worldwide.

The developer identified specific areas of concern:

• Data ownership and access: Questions about who can use the data and under what conditions
• Platform sustainability: Long-term viability without compromising core principles
• Community voice: How much influence contributors have over platform decisions
• Technical architecture: The balance between user-friendly interfaces and robust scientific tools

These concerns reflect broader challenges in the open data community. The tension between maintaining an open, accessible platform and securing funding and institutional support creates difficult trade-offs. The developer argues that some compromises fundamentally alter the nature of what makes citizen science valuable.

The commercialization of data collected by community members, without clear benefit-sharing mechanisms, emerged as a particularly contentious point. This issue touches on fundamental questions about the social contract between platform operators and their user communities.

Community dynamics played a crucial role in the decision to depart. The developer observed how iNaturalist's growth transformed its community from a tight-knit group of enthusiasts into a massive, diverse user base with competing interests.

Key community challenges included:

• Moderating disputes between users with different expertise levels
• Ensuring data quality while remaining welcoming to newcomers
• Balancing the needs of researchers, hobbyists, and conservation organizations
• Managing the expectations of institutional partners versus individual contributors

The governance structure became increasingly centralized over time, with major decisions being made by a smaller group of stakeholders. This shift away from community-driven governance raised questions about the project's democratic foundations.

Additionally, the developer noted the emotional labor required to maintain community cohesion. Volunteers often found themselves mediating conflicts, explaining policies, and advocating for community interests without formal recognition or support.

Looking ahead, the developer remains committed to the principles that initially drew them to iNaturalist: open data, community participation, and accessible biodiversity science. The departure represents not an abandonment of these ideals, but a search for alternative approaches that better align with them.

Future priorities include:

• Supporting truly open-source alternatives for biodiversity data management
• Advocating for data sovereignty principles that respect contributor rights
• Building tools that empower local communities to manage their own biodiversity data
• Promoting transparent governance models for scientific platforms

The experience with iNaturalist provides valuable lessons for other citizen science initiatives. It demonstrates both the incredible potential of community-driven platforms and the challenges they face as they scale and require institutional support.

The developer's parting message emphasizes that the goal remains the same: creating robust, accessible tools for understanding and protecting biodiversity. The path to achieving this goal, however, requires constant reevaluation of how platforms are structured and governed.