Talk:Citizen science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Networked Science is not Citizen Science[edit]

I am a student doing research on the topics of Open Science, Open Access, Open Research, Science 2.0, Citizen Science, Amateur Science, Peer-2-Peer Science and Networked Science. The definitions among them vary and overlap sometimes as they are not clearly defined.


Networked Science is more keen to Science 2.0 which is the idea of using Web 2.0 technologies for a more open and collaborative way of doing and sharing science. Networked Science is a term and concept developed mi Michael Nielson in his book (2012) "Reinventing discovery: the new era of networked science". There he points to examples of networked science such as arXiv which is an open access repository of scientific papers, many of them pre-published, and he also notes the example of Galaxy Zoo. Galaxy Zoo is citizen science but arXiv is not. So I suggest that these two be separate.


Also, a useful categorization and understanding of citizen science: From Alessandro Delfanti (2010) "Users and peers. From Citizen Science to P2P Science" Journal of Science Communication, 9(01).

There are three types of peer-2-peer (P2P) science

  • Contribution to knowledge, such as discussions about science or Wikipedia.
  • Contribution to data collection, processing, and analysis organized by a central institution like Galaxy Zoo (which I would distinguish as Crowdsourced Science since computing resources and cognitive capital is capitalized from the public)
  • Independent contribution as user-led science such as DIYbio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabgaby (talkcontribs) 21:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Sabgaby (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Sabgaby, I agree that this is a dynamic and exciting field that is changing very rapidly. I encourage you to add to these pages you've linked above, explaining the ongoing work and the emerging definitions for these new approaches to science. However, please keep in mind that everything in WP should come from a Reliable Source such as the journal article and book you mention above, and should not be Original Research. That said, feel free to contribute to the discussion! 1bandsaw (talk) 21:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
1bandsaw, this is my first entry to wikipedia, thanks for welcomming me! I am of course in no authority to say anything about the subject, all I wanted to point out is that in researching the subject it is all very confusing because definitions vary depending on the observer. I would like to edit some of these pages maybe to make it more clear (With reliable sources of course). I saw on your (talk) that you are interested on making some changes on the issue as well. We could maybe keep the discussion ongoing? also, is this page the discussion page? haha I am pretty new so I don't know the lingo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabgaby (talkcontribs) 12:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Sabgaby, This page is the talk page for Citizen Science, where editors can discuss this article, ask questions about it, and debate issues on it. From your initial post above, it looks like you have some good additional information with sources that could contribute to this article and the related articles that you linked to. WP has a policy to encourage editors like us to be bold! Edit the articles and add the sources! Then look for other articles that interest you, and see what else you can add. As relates specifically to Citizen science, I agree that the definitions and boundaries are very confusing as different experts draw the lines differently. Don't be afraid to reflect that debate from the literature onto this page, expanding on the Alternate Definitions and Related Fields sections, or adding a new section. 1bandsaw (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Untitled[edit]

Hello,

I would like to suggest to edit the page to:

"Some programs provide materials specifically for use by primary or secondary school students. As such, citizen science is one approach to [both, formal and] informal science education.

Note that it is contradictory to state citizen science is an approach to informal science education, right after stating that some programs provide materials specifically for use by primary or secondary school students.

Unless what one really wanted to say is that citizen science is informal science. But that isn't the case either because there are high qualified scientists behind data gathering and analysis across the world.

My suggestion is to highlight that citizen science encompasses both dimensions, formal and informal in both domains, science and science education.

I hope this is a useful contribution.

It is after all, a nice article with great external references.

Fsoares67 (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have citable sources for these thoughts? Wikipedia cannot use "original research", no matter how valid it might be. --Orlady (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean a source for considering school education formal education? That's as commonsense as it is considering informal education what doesn't go on in schools. In regards to high qualified scientists, the Cornell Lab of Ornithology cited in the article is a good example, but I would like also to suggest WorldBirds plus the plethora of research studies supported by EarthWatch.

There is no source to state citizen science is an approach to informal science education either in the article. Please, clarify what conjecture source you refer too.

Please, clarify —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsoares67 (talkcontribs) 19:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me I'm new to Wikipedia. I'm going to organize my sources and come back. I am affectionate to citizen science and that is actually the research topic of my dissertation. That's why I though I could contribute. Narrowing citizen science to an approach to informal science education is flat wrong, though. I have a short review of projects aimed to K-12 education. It couldn't get more formal than that. Posting sources as soon as possible. Fsoares67 19:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


Thus far I was unable to contact the author, and I suspect the review has not been published. Nevertheless, I strongly suggest to not limit the concept of Citizen Science to informal science education. It is also a pedagocial approach to increase scientific literacy among students, thus playing an important role in formal science education.-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsoares67 (talkcontribs) 14:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Crowd-sourcing?[edit]

Would citizen science be a kind of crowd-sourcing? That's what I would call it from other examples, e.g. publish photos of something and have people look at them and log the details. —Monado (talk) 04:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Yes, from Wikipedia's own article on same! —Monado (talk) 04:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • No: while it may include the use of crowd-sourcing as a technique or tactic, it is much more than that... Equating the two is erroneous in my view... Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 12:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes! Just as a business could be kickstarted by contributors' monetary resources, science can be performed using diffuse, but focused scientific resources. D.monk.usc (talk) 18:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Related book[edit]

New book, may be useful for expanding/referencing this article: Reinventing Discovery: The New Era of Networked Science by Michael Nielsen. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 06:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Connection to related issue[edit]

Professional vs. amateur science into the 19th century is more complex than "amateur"/"self-funded." Newton was a Fellow of Cambridge at age 25, and Lucasian Chair at age 27. Franklin was the 1st president of the American Philosophical Society, and a founder of the University of Pennsylvania. The professionalization of science is an interesting topic in its own right, which has a lot to do with industrialization, invention and shifting roles of academic engineering in invention, adaptation of the German Model in US academia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University#Modern_universities), the impact of WW I on supplies of high tech commodities (Germany, generally), and later, WW-II on research funding, followed by Vannevar Bush's "Endless Frontier," and support for relatively expensive research projects via a granting process that strictly enforces applicant's professionalism in order to guarantee returns on the investment (mandates on publishing - publish-or-perish). It should be noted that a number of calls for proposals by granting agencies include requests that planning include public outreach and participation. Two books that explore these questions are http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Physical_Chemistry_from_Ostwald_to_Pauli.html?id=1UZjU2WfLAoC and http://books.google.com/books/about/American_genesis.html?id=5cnuAAAAMAAJ . DanP4522874 (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

More balance needed[edit]

I'd like to see some more discussion about criticism and limitations of Citizen science. Issues such as data quality, bias, limitations of untrained volunteers, and release of sensitive information (e.g. locations of endangered species) are certainly relevant and should be expanded upon. --Animalparty-- (talk) 01:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed; I've been writing a lengthy article on the astronomical project Galaxy Zoo. As a participant in it for seven years, it has become part of my life (sad though that might seem). However, I never read much that criticises citizen science and crowdsourcing. Presumably the precesses involved are not without faults? I'm an amateur astronomer and not a professional scientist, but presumably scientists are citizens too? I'm interested in acheiving a sense of balance. If no critics exist, then so be it. I've also placed Galaxy Zoo and Zooniverse in the 'See Also' section in this article. Richard Nowell (talk) 11:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Here's a paper: 'Internet-based crowdsourcing and research ethics: the case for IRB review' by Mark A Graber and Abraham Graber. Journal Medical Ethics published online November 30, 2012, doi: 10.1136/medethics-2012-100798.Richard Nowell (talk) 09:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Reorganization?[edit]

It appears to me that this article has grown over time thanks to the help of multiple contributors. However, it looks like it could use a bit of a reorganization. The current structuring as I see it is:
Activities, consisting first of a list of numerous examples and then a general discussion of the nature of citizen science
New Technologies, consisting of a list of examples enabled by mobile phones, an example of live video, a list of examples of internet enabled examples, and a debate on whether distributed computing is citizen science.
Amateur Astronomy
Citizens in space, an opportunity for folks to train as astronauts for the future
History, consisting of a discussion of the transition of science from amateur to professionals, and a discussion of the history of the term Citizen Science
Other Definitions (of the term)
Limitations
Conferences

I would propose the following restructuring of this article:
Definition, including the general discussion from Activities, the history of the term, the alternate definitions, and the discussion/comparison with distributed computing, and the limitations discussion.
History, including the transition of science from amateurs, progressing through low-tech older examples (astronomy being featured prominently including recent events), and then moving into video, internet, and phone enabling (with examples and dates added) and citizens in space as a possible near-term future example depending upon citizen spaceflight capabilities.
The examples would all be checked to make sure they are on List of citizen science projects, and then moderately trimmed to those of note either for total participation or historical significance (among the first to do a given approach or technology). Beyond that, the rest of the content of this page would remain, just be organized for a better flow.
I would welcome input on this suggestion here on this talk page. 1bandsaw (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Support: Sounds great, thanks. While you are at it, you might review the multitude of external links and ensure their continued relevance. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The reorg is done. I've left some of the pruned examples for now on talk:List of citizen science projects until I figure out how to put entries into a table like the one on that page. The other outstanding action on this is the pruning of the external links as recommended above. I don't have to be the one to do either, others can feel free to volunteer.1bandsaw (talk) 03:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I've been doing a lot of updating and editing, post the ZooCon Portsmouth 2014 Wikithon. I hope this is OK with everyone. The refs needed sorting, and I've endeavoured to replace blog refs with 'proper refs'. It still needs quite a lot of work though I feel. Richard Nowell (talk) 08:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Richard Nowell, it looks good overall. The one thing I might suggest is that the new header in there ('Project Portals') breaks up the overall 'Modern Technology' section, and not everything after that header is about Project portals. It might make more sense to take the text that has to do with internet related tools, including the project portals, and pull those together, putting the other things (radio, mobile, genetic, UAVs, etc.) into a separate heading. 1bandsaw (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The Very Long Tag; how could we shorten the article?[edit]

A 'Very Long' tag was added on the 30th July. It is not immediately clear to me how the article can be shortened; indeed I have a wealth of material to add. Small scale, there might be a lot of duplication of links etc. that can be fixed. Richard Nowell (talk) 10:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Readable prose size is: > 100 kB Almost certainly should be divided; > 60 kB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material; > 50 kB May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size). Within this article, as a suggestion, I venture we could lose the 'Conferences' section without much worry. Richard Nowell (talk) 11:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I've removed the tag; at 25kb readable prose, there's no possible way this qualifies as a "very long page". ‑ Iridescent 17:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Agree. Richard Nowell (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
The law section specifically, should and could be a separate page and joined with another topic. The "Law of Citizen Science" could be a separate article page. What other sections could be grouped into the law portion? Cgabriele (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Citizen science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Citizen science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Citizen science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Wrong citation[edit]

The statement "Members may lie about data. This risk is even greater when bounties are awarded as an incentive to participate." can nowhere be found in the reference (Thelen, Brett Amy; Thiet, Rachel K. (2008). "Cultivating connection: Incorporating meaningful citizen science into Cape Cod National Seashore's estuarine research and monitoring programs". Park Science. 25 (1). CiteSeerX 10.1.1.692.656. Archived from the original on 1 January 2014. Retrieved 11 October 2012.). This error taken over in other language version of this article, e.g. the German one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.156.75.210 (talk) 10:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC) --87.156.75.210 (talk) 10:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert. I removed that sentence and also added new info to the citation, which was no longer fully available at the original or archived url cited. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:00, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Possible Language Edit[edit]

Hello, I noticed that the "Around the World" section lists regions like Asia, Africa, and Latin America. I think titling this section "Around the World" and then listing such countries that are not North American or European centers the subject of citizen science in the North American and European sector. Judging from the information provided in this article, citizen science seems to be an international practice that is not exclusive to nor originated in North America or Europe. Perhaps "Global Practices" or "Worldwide" would be less biased language? Jpuvogel (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)jpuvogel October 11 2020.

Change language from literature review style to encyclopedic style[edit]

I see that this article often lists the authors of the publications which is very much "academic literature review" style but not encyclopedic style. I plan to change that, unless anyone objects? This kind of writing often happens as a result of student assignments, in my experience. EMsmile (talk) 12:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

CARES program[edit]

I would like to add a relavant citation to this section on fishes:

The CARES preservation program contains over 500 species of freshwater fish, including 85 species which are currently undescribed by scientists and 30 species thought to be extinct in the wild.Due to their considerable knowledge, these citizen scientists have their own risk classification, with many differing from the IUCN's risk classification, including a third of extinct-in-the-wild CARES species which were classified as least concern by the IUCN.

The reference is https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes4040049

Pinging @MrOllie: to discuss his objections to the source/content. Schazjmd (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
This strikes me as WP:UNDUE. There is a recommendation that we insert an inline external link - which would be against policy. Setting that aside, the citation suggested has been cited zero times according to the publisher and google scholar. - MrOllie (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)