Talk:Galaxy Zoo

Peer-reviewed results
I'm forbidden by WP:COI from doing this myself, but I think the Galaxy Zoo article would benefit from the inclusion of links to the peer-reviewed papers we've released. Two (to date) have been accepted - Land et al and Lintott et al and one other is available online - Bamford et al.. Could someone oblige? Chrislintott (talk) 14:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Done - I took a look and thought they were worth knowing about. I've never met any of the people involved.  --GwydionM (talk) 16:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Infinite loop sites
An infinite loop is a programming error, and is not the same as an unresponsive site. Galaxy Zoo can be slow at times, it has a lot of users. But it remains valid and should not have been removed. Thanks to Olaf Davis for restoring it.--GwydionM (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Pea galaxy
I have added a link in the "See also" section to the "Pea galaxy" article as I'm sure that it is relevant to this subject, and deleted some unwanted incorrect material. Rick Richard Nowell (talk) 11:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

New sub project
The Milky Way Project, http://www.milkywayproject.org, was launched today by galaxyzoo.org. Shouldn't that be included in the article? --Mortense (talk) 16:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There seem to be seven live projects: a summary of all of them would be useful, if anyone knows. I've only done the galaxies myself.


 * What we have now goes only as far as Galaxy Zoo 2; it does not mention Galaxy Zoo Hubble. --GwydionM (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The whole web portal is called the Zooniverse. Help in improving that article would be much appreciated. ChiZeroOne (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

A new page for the Table of Discoveries?
The table is excellent, but it consists mostly of detailed references that would only interest a professional astronomer or a very keen amateur. This could go on a new page, referenced from here.

On this page, I'd suggest just the titles of the articles, maybe grouped by 'Submitted', 'Accepted' and 'Publised'. Plus a few extra details where these might be of wider interest. The Sudden Death of the Nearest Quasar is an example: quasars have a high profile and it would be interesting if confirmed that there was one still functining during human prehistory. --GwydionM (talk) 12:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm just trying to update a very out of date page which is why i've been following the current format. Yes I suppose we could limit the table to just "Name" and "Links".  I think it would however be wise to put in their place discussion on the implications of the findings of each/most.  The discoveries made as a result of this citizen science project is a very important part of the topic. ChiZeroOne (talk) 12:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW, the "Galaxy Zoo: An Unusual New Class of Galaxy Cluster" paper is an April Fools joke. nihil (talk) 14:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Too many papers now?
I presume I am not allowed to edit this page as I'm the Project Scientist for Galaxy Zoo, but I wonder if the table of all the publications (which is out of date) is really helpful. Could it just point to the list we maintain of our publications at [www.zooniverse.org/publications]? I think Galaxy Zoo can claim to be the most scientifically productive (in terms of peer reviewed publications) of all online citizen science projects, but I cannot prove that. We currently have 42 published papers (as you can see at the above link), but I expect that number to increase quite quickly so probably not worth recording. KarenLMasters (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course you can edit - but declare an interest and make sure that the wikipedia reliability is put first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.206.230.243 (talk) 10:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I removed the entire list. It is unorthodox to have these kinds of lists on Wikipedia, as this is not done for scientists, authors, institutions, and other entities unless the papers themselves (not the discoveries described in the papers) attract third-party attention. A few representative papers is sometimes okay but rarely preferable. If anyone has comments on this removal then please share. Feel free to look at other articles on research organizations or data-producing organizations; these kinds of lists are out of scope for what Wikipedia tries to cover.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  16:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Probably the right action as the list was getting too big. I suggest a section called "Selected Science Papers", in which paragraphs are written about the most noteworthy or important papers. There are a dozen or so that deserve attention, so I'll try a few using the abstracts available online. Also, it should be noted on the main page that the list still exists here. Richard Nowell (talk) 09:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Have started on SSP. This needs wikification. There might well be say, a dozen descriptions in this section. Will remove section 'Some Discoveries' soon as it becomes obsolete. I'm trying to focus on the most noteworthy. Richard Nowell (talk) 12:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The size of the section was not the problem, and the new content might also not be appropriate. Perhaps I was not clear in explaining that, or perhaps you have information that I do not and see something about these sources that make them unusual as compared to typical science publications. A small bibliography might be appropriate if it puts other parts of the article in context, but right now, it looks like the "Selected Science Papers" list is just a set of original summaries of some individual papers. In Wikipedia speak, this is -original research, because the section is an assertion of importance with citations to anyone saying that the content is significant.
 * How would you feel about not having a section like this? Wikipedia is supposed to be a summary of what secondary sources say about a topic, and that seems to not be what is happening here. Is this just a curated list that is an original creation, or have these papers themselves actually attracted published attention?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  15:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see what you mean, in that the list of papers is arbitrarily chosen by someone (me). Yes, they are original summaries from the published abstract. They all have multiple citations (more than several dozen) which makes them noteworthy compared to many publications (my opinion). I guess though that an explanation of some of the GZ papers may well be useful to the general reader. How about I remove the section, but keep it in talk, where such problems as -original research, do not exist. It can then be added to as and when, complimenting the full list. That still leaves the question though of how to justify attracting attention to any discoveries that GZ has made, of which there are many. Perhaps you can suggest a way that might be achieved? Richard Nowell (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * They are certainly appropriate to keep here on the talk page in any form.
 * The justification of attracting attention to these papers would be finding their coverage in third-party media. The ideal source would be a published history of significant papers produced as a result of Galaxy Zoo. I have never seen such a thing anywhere in open science, which disappoints me because the legitimacy of the open movement depends on such things being published and discussed. I wish that someone could get an article published named "3 papers published as a result of GZ" and that it be in an appropriate media outlet by an appropriate speaker. I am not expecting high prestige, but just some appropriate publication.
 * This is not just a GZ problem, but rather a problem in that no research institution has been able to make the jump to new media. All still want to speak for themselves and shy from providing the kinds of interviews that translate well into sourcing for Wikipedia. I could say more about this but the summary is - we want the kinds of sources which would verify what it would be best for an encyclopedia article to say.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  16:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Well there has been press about some of the papers. We wrote a review article for Astronomy & Geophysics last October (based on a conference we had) - but I guess that's not third party. There's a paper by Ron Buta on Galaxy Morphology which cites the contributions of Galaxy Zoo (but perhaps not individual papers). I remember there being press about red spirals, the peas, the discovery that bars might make spiral galaxies redder, Hanny's Voorwerp of course, and there was a bit on the first results from Galaxy Zoo Hubble…. probably there's more. I'm not sure this is tons more than happens for many published results, but I guess the difference her is the general interest in results from Galaxy Zoo linked to the method of getting the classifications. KarenLMasters (talk) 20:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Externally published papers written by Galaxy Zoo may be appropriate to cite. That paper in Astronomy & Geophysics might be usable. Perhaps this could even be stretched from journalism about the papers to journalism which includes mention of the methodology, where someone says "The Galaxy Zoo system produced this result", then you summarize the result and cite the paper.
 * I am not sure what to recommend that is clever, but the thing to avoid is curating content to present if that content has not somehow been profiled in a third-party published source. The GZ scientific papers can be featured when they complement other content backed by sources, but should not be the center of developing content for this article. I am not sure what to recommend.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  20:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm remembering a Guardian (or maybe Observer) article about Galaxy Zoo. I think the Forum used to have a list of press, but not sure how complete it is… KarenLMasters (talk) 13:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Really, if the article was filled out and used refs to all the available papers, then we wouldn't need a list. A list is lazy in many ways: it is far more useful if a paragraph is written and the available papers referenced. A list is just that: referenced sections are more encyclopedic and demonstrate understanding. That I consider is the next step- use the information in these 44 papers, rather than list them. Richard Nowell (talk) 11:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014 Updating

 * This article needs a lot of updating really, which is what I've started on. There are numerous refs and links which can be simplified by wikification. An example of this is Hanny's Voorwerp. All the relevant info can be found in that article, so does not need to be repeated here. There were half-a-dozen links that were unnecessary and out-of-date, which explains the chunks of data that have been deleted. My interest is making this article up-to-date and as concise as possible. As for the list of papers that should be shown, leaving some in and others out is a bit hit-and-miss. Perhaps a list can be started here to decide which? Richard Nowell (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The lists are excellent, but they need to be on the main page. (I'd do it myself but I don't know how.)  --GwydionM (talk) 11:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, a lot of work has been put in to The List, but for reasons outlined in 'Too Many Papers' it got moved here. Ay least the list hasn't disappeared- merely been moved. Certainly The List needs to be updated. IMHO it is ok here, but should be linked to from the main article. The 'selected papers' section I started is OK here, and can be added to as and when. It is only meant for the general reader. I think the main priority is not The List, but a section describing the various GZ projects (past and present) with refs to the results papers. A way forward? Richard Nowell (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "a section describing the various GZ projects (past and present) with refs to the results papers" would be ideal if you had some journalism which described various GZ projects. The main article should not link to talk pages - that is a Wikipedia rule. There are ways to format and present such a list through links. Probably Wikiversity would be the best host for such a list, but for various reasons I feel that adapting a list is unlikely to be a high-impact outreach tool. I could say more or help do something if the list is really desired.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  20:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a complete list of Galaxy Zoo papers (well actually all Zooniverse papers) hosted at https://www.zooniverse.org/publications The GZ science team makes sure that's up-to-date and includes links to open access versions of the papers. So why not link to that? KarenLMasters (talk) 09:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That seems like a good candidate for an external link and could be put into Galaxy_Zoo. The policy covering external links is at WP:EL. Right now there are about 10 links, and you are proposing to add another one. At ELMINOFFICIAL, the advice is to have one link to the subject of the article, which would be galaxyzoo.org. Perhaps another official link could be added, and perhaps a list of articles would be a good choice. It would be orthodox to delete most or all of the other links there. Could you comment on what external links you thing ought to be there, if the usual practice is one official link and the other links need to comply with WP:EL?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  17:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Have removed section 'Progress' and replaced it with 'Galaxy Zoo projects (active and retired)'. The refs used are the definitive results papers and do not include every paper as a result of that project. This is a first step for the updating of this article. Richard Nowell (talk) 10:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't the individual projects be at a lower level than 'Galaxy Zoo projects (active and retired)'? (This would be === Item === rather than  == Item == ).  --GwydionM (talk) 10:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course. I was thinking of another way of doing it, but can't remember now. Thanks, Richard Nowell (talk) 11:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Looking for a definitive 'GZ merger' paper. A list of specific results... Richard Nowell (talk) 11:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Changed intro, giving refs and tidying. Richard Nowell (talk) 15:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I checked out recent edits and yes, this is closer to what Wikipedia expects. Content is added which is derived from third party sources. I removed the content which is sourced from Galaxy Zoo's own publications. Wikipedia community guidelines advise against adding information self-published by the subject of an article, with some exceptions. Is there any compelling reason why this information ought to be in here? This almost never happens.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  17:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course. Have re-introduced paragraphs using refs from reliable third party sources which are the University of Oxford and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). The compelling reason why those paragraphs shoud be here is that they are the current active GZ sites. They have now been externally sourced. Richard Nowell (talk) 07:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Nice work Richard. :) My comments are that it would be nice to have some summary of science results on here. One of the things which distinguishes Galaxy Zoo (and the Zooniverse) from many other citizen science projects is the focus on peer reviewed published results. Great to list the number, but some summary of the high-lights would be even better. I'll think about 3rd party sources for that. Would also be nice to mention Galaxy Zoo was a very early adopter of online citizen science. Again noted the need for a 3rd party source to prove that. :) KarenLMasters (talk) 11:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thankyou, it's nice to be appreciated. Bluerasberry should also be thanked. I've put a section on WikiProject_Astronomy asking for comments on this update. I'm dubious about the list of universities in 'Origin'. Presumably not ALL the universities credited in the 44 papers are listed, so why should the ones mentioned in the article be here? It seems arbitrary and could be taken as a sign of exclusivety and self-selection. Worth thinking about. Rgds Richard Nowell (talk) 11:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

In the "Importance of Volunteers" section, my book "Reinventing Discovery" is quoted as saying: "GZ went beyond computers, because it applied human intelligence to do deep analyses of large data sets." I don't believe this sentence appears in the book. The closest excerpt I can find (p 142) is: "Like a computer, Galaxy Zoo can find patterns in large data sets, data sets far beyond the comprehension of any single individual. But Galaxy Zoo can go beyond computers, because it can also apply human intelligence in the analysis, the kind of intelligence that recognizes that the voorwerp or a green pea galaxy is out of the ordinary, and deserves further investigation.  Galaxy Zoo is thus a hybrid, able to do deep analyses of large data sets that are impossible in any other way.  It's a new way of turning data into knowledge." Michael Nielsen (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I had paraphrased the sentences on page 142, and then later added 'Michael Nielsen wrote' as if it were all one sentence. Thankyou for pointing this out. I have since changed this. Richard Nowell (talk) 08:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for making the change! Michael Nielsen (talk) 01:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014 Update v2
As the above July 2014 Update section was getting very large, I've started a v2. I've endeavoured to place studies into groups, so that all the dust ones are in dust etc. This seems to work ok. I've deleted the 'Selected Science Papers' section from this Talk as it was no longer needed. I suggest the original 'List' of papers (The List) is removed, as this has become obsolete. I'm now trying to source pictures to illustrate the article. There needs to be more wikification and the sections need expanding, but this will happen over time. There is no 'highlights section', nor IMHO does there need to be. The list of some universities has been removed as it seemed arbitrary and did not represent all. I hope the article seems more encyclopedic now. It's certainly a lot easier to understand, access and edit I feel. The 'External links' now has only five in it, in accordance with WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. Richard Nowell (talk) 10:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Readability
Have started to try and make it more 'readable' and not just a collection of ref'd sentences; less prosaic.Richard Nowell (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Measures of Success
For another project we just collected independent references mentioning Galaxy Zoo as a successful project. I don't have time to properly wikify these right now, but though adding them here as a resource might be useful for others who might want to include some of this in the site.

The US Decadal Review of Astrophysics? http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/special-events/astro2010-astronomy-and-astrophysics-decadal-survey/

contains the following :

"One such project, Galaxy Zoo, enables on-line users to classify galaxies from Sloan Digital Sky Survey images; to date more than 230,000 registered users have analyzed data, and a few have produced unique new discoveries (see figure 4-3). The success of Galaxy Zoo has inspired the creation of similar Citizen Science projects to analyze imaging from space missions to the Moon and Mars, and the model is being duplicated in other fields of science. "

A similar mention in a Council of Canadian Science Culture document: http://www.scienceadvice.ca/uploads/eng/assessments%20and%20publications%20and%20news%20releases/science-culture/scienceculture_fullreporten.pdf

says "One example of a citizen science project that has attracted widespread attention is Galaxy Zoo. ", and "Well-known examples of citizen science initiatives include Galaxy Zoo,"

There's this from the EU on Environmental Citizen Science, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/IR9.pdf

"With the internet has risen a ‘new wave’ of online crowd-sourcing projects sometimes termed ‘citizen cyberscience’. Possibly the most oft-cited and high profile example is Galaxy Zoo "

A report on New Visions in Citizen Science from the Wilson Center http://www.wilsoncenter.org/ profiled 17 successful citizen science projects (including Galaxy Zoo).

And David Willetts mentioned Galaxy Zoo as a part of the success story for UK science in a speech when he was minister for BIS. https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/great-britain-the-best-place-in-the-world-to-do-science

"Indeed 1 of the secrets of our success is what we now call citizen science, which delivers large volumes of research quality scientific data, fast. Thousands of ordinary volunteers have analysed online images of galaxies with Galaxy Zoo,"

KarenLMasters (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC) (Project Scientist for Galaxy Zoo)

List of GZ Science Papers.
List of Scientific Papers

Here is a list of scientific papers derived from the project with related information (the accepted and published are in green).

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Galaxy Zoo. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170803172752/https://uk.news.yahoo.com/10th-anniversary-galaxy-zoo-citizen-141722835.html to https://uk.news.yahoo.com/10th-anniversary-galaxy-zoo-citizen-141722835.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)