Wikipedia:Sensitive wildlife locations

In general, Wikipedia would benefit from far more information about the distribution of wild animals, plants and other organisms.

It is important to note, however, that conservationists broadly agree that, in a relatively small number of instances, information about the exact locations of wildlife should be kept out of the public domain, for the safety of the organisms concerned. There has been at least one occasion when information about a rare wild plant has been added to Wikipedia which, in the opinion of some editors at least, put it at significant risk of both theft by plant collectors and serious accidental damage by careless visitors.

The aim of this guideline is to provide guidance as to when such information should not be added to Wikipedia; and to allow for the speedy removal of anything inappropriate. This guideline draws on Wikipedia's policy for Biographies of living persons as well as the opinions and practices of a range of conservation bodies and biologists.

Background
The instance mentioned above concerns a Lady's-slipper Orchid at a location in Yorkshire. The location of this plant, which is the last truly wild specimen in Britain, was at one point given on both the pages for the species and the location. Editors removed and reinstated the information at least once in each case. Discussions concluded incorrectly that there was nothing in existing Wikipedia policies to justify the removal of the information. Wikipedia guidelines require reliable sources for contentious material. Without reliable sources contentious material can and should be removed.

The location of this orchid has traditionally been kept out of the public domain by anyone with knowledge of it. The nearest this information has come to being made public before seems to be a single, very obscure book.

The proposed guideline
Exact locations of rare wildlife should not be included on Wikipedia if all of the following three conditions are met:

(1) the population of organisms at the location concerned is known to be at serious risk of illegal or accidental destruction, removal or persecution; (2) inclusion of location details on Wikipedia heightens that risk to a significant degree, because previous published sources were far less well-known; and (3) a reputable and well-established conservation body with responsibility for protecting the wildlife concerned favours keeping the location as litte-known as possible.

If all these conditions are met, distribution should be described in more general terms.

Wildlife in this case is taken to mean wild animals, plants, and any other organisms, such as fungae or seaweeds.

In cases where the threat to the wildlife concerned is unusually serious, it may be appropriate for the oversight process to be used. Such cases would need to be judged on an individual basis. Editors seeking use of the oversight process might be advised to suggest to the conservation body responsible for the organism concerned that it makes an approach to the Wikimedia Foundation. The Lady's-slipper is possibly a case in which use of Oversight would be justified.

Comparison with Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons
A precedent of sorts for this guideline has been set by the Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons. This policy states 'The possibility of harm to living subjects must be considered when exercising editorial judgment'. The possibility of harm to non-human living subjects should equally be a concern of editors.

This proposed guideline does however differ from the BLP policy in significant ways. The BLP policy includes a 'presumption in favour of privacy' and explicitly states that addresses or other contact details should not be given for living persons. In the case of fauna and flora, there should be on the contrary a presumption in favour of publicity, and there will generally be no reason to withhold the 'addresses' – i.e. the locations – of wildlife.

Policy and practice among conservationists
This proposed guideline has been shaped partly by examination of the policies and opinions of a range of British wildlife conservationists and biologists.

The majority of these agree that in general it is good to publicise information about where particular wildlife can be found. However they also agree that in certain circumstances information should not be disclosed.

The following are examples of organisations and individuals that, while publicising large numbers of sites for wildlife, in these cases British wildlife, have decided that some information should be kept out of the public domain:

The National Biodiversity Network is perhaps the most important body in the UK for collating and making public this kind of information. Its position is that 'In the majority of cases making biodiversity data openly available benefits the environment' but that 'in a small number of cases, public access to biodiversity data can result in environmental harm'.

The RSPB withholds information about the exact nesting locations of particularly rare birds. For instance, it comments that 'The sites used by marsh warblers are not publicised to reduce the risks from egg collectors or disturbance from birdwatchers.'

Butterfly Conservation does not disclose most of the locations where the Large Blue Butterfly has been reintroduced, 'to prevent illegal collecting or accidental disturbance'.

The independent authors Anne and Simon Harrap have written that they are opposed to 'unnecessary secrecy' about the sites of rare orchids. They argue that publicity for rare plant sites in most cases helps their conservation. However, for a very few species, including the Lady's-slipper, they deemed it sensible not to include location details in their book on British orchids.

The London Bird Club provides a wiki-based site for birdwatchers to post bird sightings. Its guidelines state 'Please do not post details of scarce breeding birds (those included in Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, amended 2000)'.