IUCN Red List Categories
Most species profiles reference a status from the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species — the global standard for assessing extinction risk. From lowest to highest concern:
Least Concern (LC)Widespread and abundant; does not qualify as threatened or Near Threatened.
Near Threatened (NT)Close to qualifying as threatened, or likely to in the near future.
Vulnerable (VU)Faces a high risk of extinction in the wild.
Endangered (EN)Faces a very high risk of extinction in the wild.
Critically Endangered (CR)Faces an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild — the most severe category short of extinction.
Extinct in the Wild (EW)Survives only in captivity, cultivation, or as a population well outside its historic range.
Extinct (EX)No reasonable doubt that the last individual has died.
Data Deficient (DD)Not enough information exists to assess extinction risk directly — this is a data gap, not a status, and should not be read as "safe."
Not Evaluated (NE)Has not yet been assessed against the criteria.
Note: "functionally extinct in the wild," used on some of our Field Notes reports, is not an official IUCN category — it's a descriptive term for populations that persist in name but are no longer viable or reliably confirmed in the wild (for example, a handful of unconfirmed individuals in remote terrain). We use it, with sourcing, when the official category doesn't capture the nuance of the evidence.
Evidence Level
Every profile carries an Evidence Level rating, shown with the Evidence Meter. It reflects the quality, consistency, and recency of the sources behind the page — not whether the underlying situation is good or bad news.
Very StrongMultiple independent, recent, peer-reviewed or official sources are in agreement.
StrongWell-documented by credible sources, with only minor gaps or a smaller number of independent sources.
ModerateThe core claims are sourced, but with meaningful data gaps, regional unevenness, or reliance on modeled rather than directly measured data — always noted specifically on the page carrying this rating.
Other Recurring Terms
Established Fact vs. Editorial AnalysisEvery profile visually separates claims that are directly sourced ("Established fact") from our own interpretation of what those facts mean ("Editorial analysis") — so readers always know which is which.
Field NotesA separate series of location-specific status reports (for example, Borneo, Amazonas), distinct from our Species, Ecosystem, and Threat profiles, which cover a subject wherever it occurs rather than a single place.
Last ReviewedThe most recent date a profile's content was checked against current sources, shown alongside its original publish date.
Frequently Asked Questions
How do you decide what to cover?
We prioritize subjects with strong, verifiable sourcing and clear relevance to wildlife or ecosystem health — not what's trending. See our Editorial Standards for the full process.
What happens when scientists disagree?
We represent genuine disagreement as disagreement rather than picking a side for narrative convenience. Our Debated Topics index covers these cases explicitly.
How often is content updated?
Every profile is reviewed on a defined cycle and updated when the underlying evidence changes. The Recently Reviewed index shows the full, dated list.
Can I suggest a correction or a source?
Yes — see our Contribute page. Every submission is reviewed against our editorial standards before anything changes on the platform.
Is Wild Earth Watch affiliated with any advocacy group, company, or political organization?
No. We're editorially independent, without advertisers or institutional affiliation — see About for more.