I think I'll take a stab at answering Ed's questions from my perspective.
This perspective includes having been a field notes compiler and editor
(taking, assessing, and assembling reports from the public) on a state level
in Nebraska and Oregon, a CBC compiler in Portland (recording Christmas
Count results and questioning sightings as needed), having done research on
field guide history, and my own nearly 30 years of making the types of
mistakes that Mike Patterson talked about.

Ed's Questions are numbered; my answers follow.
1. Are lots of birders not as skilled as they think they are?
Yup. And there are lots of birders I know who are more skilled than they
think they are. The problem as I see it is that birders ignore the tips and
hints on how to bird that are published at the front of every field guide.
People at times play match the picture, and while the Sibley guide is a
wonderful thing, it has a tendency to cause people to make identifications
that may not be accurate because they play "match the picture." I know this
because I did it for the first ten years I birded (8 to about 18).
Case in point, Sibley's Peregrine Falcon--he does not illustrate one of the
subspecies, and birders have been posting falcons as other subspecies.
Peregrines also have the added problem of being bred in captivity and
released, and much of the time, you don't know what comes out of such a
genetic mix.
More common case in point--summer Fox Sparrows in Portland. Every summer,
some eastern visitor reports Fox Sparrows in Portland in the summer. Why?
Our Song Sparrows look like eastern Foxes, they often don't have the central
breast spot (one of the most evil of all field marks when it comes to
misidentification--if I had a dime for every time . . . ), and they expect
such to be a Fox.
Range, season, and other key information is ignored for match-the-picture
mentality, and studying locally is something even more important. Color and
field mark are only two ways to look at identification, but most of the
inexpensive, less time intrusive methodology for learning birds focuses on
these two things.
2. Do lots of birders see the birds they want to see?
We all do, but I think a lot of this is more a matter of experience. I once
reported a Painted Bunting in Nebraska--I did not see everything on this
green bird but was really insistent. I know now that western O-cr warblers
can be a really bright green, and since I did not see a bill and did not see
a picture of a green O-c warbler in the book, I had people chasing all over
for that bird. I also had talked myself into the fact that all the weather
conditions were right for a spring overshoot, and made a confident report
that was rejected. Today, 15 years later, I'd go "damn, wished I had a
better look." There are birders out there who do not assess or analyze
sufficiently, or truly "see what they want to see."
3. Are lots of birders enamored with keeping lists? Is the total count the
payoff? Else why include crows, starlings, etc, in lists? Has the mechanical
process replaced simply enjoying the birds for what they are and blighted
the ability to properly identify?
Yes. For some. For those, in the first two answers, it's the reason they
are there. The fourth question--I know that there are birders who have
birds on their lists that they have not identified correctly. The problem
arises not from private lists, but from public sharing of these data and
their inclusion into permanent records like CBCs and Field Notes. Once that
piece of data is out there, it is hard to get it retracted without bodies
like records committees reviewing records. Most records committees probably
do a disservice by taking birds off of the list of review too quickly. More
conservative stances should probably be taken. I think most records
committees should expand their mission, especially in states like Oregon and
Washington with so much geographical variation.
I'd note that there are also good listers--those who report, verify, and
record. They have significantly added to the record because they bother to
take the time to be careful.
I as a field notes editor walk a fine line between the public record and the
records committee, and I know at times I must say "this record needs review"
or "more information is needed--forward to the records committee." The
Internet is dangerous because it sets up a public interface that legitimizes
the wrong as well as the right. Self-patrol and self-questioning, as well
as the questions that Mike P. asks, are those we must continue to answer.
Read Dean of the Birdwatchers by William Davis and read how difficult Ludlow
Griscom would make such questioning of those around him, including Roger
Tory Peterson. We need to continue this tradition of questioning in a
polite but firm manner--recording the correct information must take
precedence over politeness in these politically charged times.
4. And of course, does any field guide display many birds as we see them?
No, and none of them claim to. Until you get birds in the hand, live or
dead (roadkill and windowkill included), you never get a sense of them.
When I was 18, I started working with a bander. That's when I really
started converting from a visual, match-the-picture birder to what I am
today, which is far from a complete product (my record keeping is especially
abysmal, much less other birding skills). I sometimes frustrate field trips
I lead because I linger on common birds, trying to get people to look at
other things besides field marks. A class and some advice from Harry Nehls
and listening seriously at Portland's Birder's Night really changed the way
I look at shorebirds.
What I think all should do is read the opening 20 pages of
guides--most of my dissertation dealt with these sections of guides, and
most of us in the field ignore them. Reread them. A plug for Dennis
Paulson--his introductory section in his SHorebirds book is wonderful--if
you haven't read it, you haven't read the book. And don't forget Ralph
Hoffmann's Birds of the Pacific States (1927)--the lack of pictures force
you to read.

Ray Korpi, PhD "In March, with the cliff swallows
in Mexico
Clark College headed north, the committee
meetings
Vancouver, WA will not even be put on the
calendar."
--John Janovy, Jr., Keith
County Journal