Editing IUCN Red List (section)

==Criticism==
In 1997, the IUCN Red List received criticism on the grounds of secrecy (or at least poor documentation) surrounding the sources of its data.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Mrosovsky|first=Nicholas |date=October 1997|title=IUCN's credibility critically endangered |journal=[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]|volume=389|issue=6650 |pages=436|bibcode=1997Natur.389..436M|doi=10.1038/38873 |s2cid=4389685|doi-access=free}}</ref> These allegations have led to efforts by the IUCN to improve its documentation and data quality, and to include peer reviews of taxa on the Red List.<ref name="Mace 1424–1442"/> The list is also open to petitions against its classifications, on the basis of documentation or criteria.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.iucnredlist.org//info/info_sources_quality |title=Information Sources & Quality |work=IUCN Red List |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080917154041/http://www.iucnredlist.org/info/info_sources_quality |archive-date=17 September 2008 |access-date=19 September 2008}}</ref>

In the November 2002 issue of ''[[Trends in Ecology & Evolution]]'', an article suggested that the IUCN Red List and similar works are prone to misuse by governments and other groups that draw possibly inappropriate conclusions on the state of the environment or to affect [[exploitation of natural resources]].<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Possingham|first1=Hugh P.|author-link=Hugh Possingham|last2=Andelman|first2=Sandy J. |last3=Burgman |first3=Mark A.|author-link3=Mark Burgman |last4=Medellı́n |first4=Rodrigo A.|author-link4=Rodrigo Medellín |last5=Master |first5=Larry L.|last6=Keith|first6=David A.|date=November 2002 |title=Limits to the use of threatened species lists|journal=[[Trends in Ecology & Evolution]]|volume=17|issue=11|pages=503–507|citeseerx=10.1.1.467.6031|doi=10.1016/S0169-5347(02)02614-9 |bibcode=2002TEcoE..17..503P }}</ref>

In the November 2016 issue of ''[[Science Advances]]'', a research article claims there are serious inconsistencies in the way species are classified by the IUCN. The researchers contend that the IUCN's process of categorization is "out-dated, and leaves room for improvement", and further emphasize the importance of readily available and easy-to-include geospatial data, such as satellite and aerial imaging. Their conclusion questioned not only the IUCN's method but also the validity of where certain species fall on the List. They believe that combining geographical data can significantly increase the number of species that need to be reclassified to a higher risk category.<ref name="Stocks 2016">{{cite web |last=Stocks |first=Sam |title=New study claims that the IUCN Red List is inaccurate |website=Discover Wildlife |date=10 November 2016 |url=https://www.discoverwildlife.com/news/new-study-claims-that-the-iucn-red-list-is-inaccurate/ |access-date=24 April 2022}}</ref>