I appreciate all the viewpoints that surfaced in response to my post on
questionable bird sightings, both on Tweeters and sent to me. I especially
appreciate Steve Mlodinov's and Mike Patterson's efforts to explain further
a viewpoint similar to mine. As a birder and ornithologist very interested
in the distribution and occurrence of birds, I am a committed critic of
incorrect bird sightings, but I'm also usually a tactful and considerate
person, and my first thought is that a note to the observer would be the
kindest, gentlest thing to do and would solve the problem. Unfortunately,
most of the time I've done that, it has NOT worked. If private requests for
retraction of records had worked for me, that would always be my approach.

In the majority of the relatively few occasions on which I have sent a
message to an observer questioning a particular report on Tweeters, the
observer did not post any public retraction or correction. In some other
cases in which I made a public statement on Tweeters, observers have either
not responded at all or responded with something like "I might have been
wrong." The least common response I have noted is "omigosh, you're right, I
must have completely misidentified those birds, and I'm sorry if I might
have misled others." Perhaps it's just too embarrassing to admit on a
public forum that one was (probably) wrong.

Steve made a good case for the value of correct identification, and I'll add
to that by saying it's essential to ornithology that incorrect sightings are
not published, and I feel it is similarly important to birding. Whether we
like it or not, posting on Tweeters is something like publishing, as it is
widely disseminated. Think of your response to something "factual"
published in your favorite newspaper or magazine or radio station that you
later found was untrue ("it looks as if Al Gore has won the election"). Not
only that, but records are extracted from Tweeters for publication in North
American Birds, WOSNews, and Earthcare Northwest - that is certainly
publication. Tweeters is archived, so anything written in it is also
available far into the future. Any invalid record not publicly questioned
remains forever, and in 50 years, no one will know anything about the
experience and abilities of the observer; they might simply conclude that
Western Sandpipers and House Wrens occasionally wintered at Magnuson Park.

To me, the simplest way to handle this is for people to post their
observations without fear (but hopefully to try their hardest to be
accurate), have certain of them corrected or at least pointed out by more
knowledgeable observers (and learn by this action), and have the original
observers acknowledge their presumed mistake (only gaining in respect).
That's an ideal world to me, and I think birders of every level of
experience can be part of it. What I fear is that forums such as Tweeters
may become of less and less value if there is a groundswell against doing
what I just did, being one of the critics who tries to set the record
straight. Ultimately, compilers of records would stop using Tweeters as a
source, and we'd all be the poorer for that.

I'll admit I'm not quite sure how to have Tweeters serve as both a forum for
chatting about birds and an authoritative source of bird records, but I'm
trying to work for that happening.

I don't know what anyone else posted to Ellen, but my criticism was
certainly not intended for her personally, just for the idea of incorrect
sightings in the public eye. I'm so thankful that a number of people
pointed out that it's OK to misidentify a bird, in the spirit of "lighten
up." All of us do this, and I think you have to learn, as soon as you begin
reporting your sightings to others, to expect that some of them may be
questioned. The reporter and the questioner are both part of the picture,
and both are worthy of respect.

Dennis Paulson
--
Netta Smith and Dennis Paulson
1724 NE 98 St.
Seattle, WA 98115