Talk:List of citizen science projects/Archive 1

Please fill it up
If you stopped by for a look, please research and add one Citizen science project to the list. Good sources to start with are include Scientific American and Zooniverse. There are dozens and maybe hundreds of other projects that are active in many disciplines. I will work on additions to the list when I can and appreciate any and all help to expand it faster and make it more complete and encyclopedic. Thanks, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 22:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Clippings from Citizen Science
I've done a reorganization of Citizen science, and as part of it, I've pruned out some of the many examples that were on that page. Unfortunately, I'm not quite sure how to edit the table format that this page has, so for now, I'm going to put the entries I pruned from there here so that someone more knowledgable can put them on this page. 1bandsaw (talk) 03:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

In the EU-funded Citclops project (2012–2015), citizen scientists help gather data to assess the environmental status of water bodies by measuring their optical properties. Citizen scientists can help analyze data that has been gathered by professional researchers. SETILive, Clumpy, EyeWire, Galaxy Zoo, Cell Slider Cell Spotting and other Zooniverse projects are examples. Citizen scientists can volunteer at a research center or join a research expedition, such as those organized by the Earthwatch Institute. Citizen scientists can compete in competition such as NASA's International Space Apps Challenge. Citizen scientists can travel to areas that are seldom visited by professional researchers. Examples include James Cameron's DeepSea Challenger project and Citizens in Space Examples include GLOBE at Night and the Loss of the Night app. Citizen scientists can create collective sensor networks to empower the public with accurate and timely data such as Safecast

Other Internet-based citizen-science include NASA's Stardust@home, SETILive, CosmoQuest, and various Zooniverse projects such as Galaxy Zoo, Foldit,  EteRNA, Quantum Moves and the Phylo video game. National Geographic has an archeology project, Field Expedition: Mongolia, in which users tag potential archeological dig sites on GeoEye satellite images, to assist explorers on the ground in Mongolia. EyeWire users help scientists trace neurons through the retina, with the goal of creating a full retinal connectome.

Broken Link
The link to the "Orca Game", listed as , is broken. I have no idea where it should point, but I thought somebody ought to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.238.78.66 (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Please fill it up
please add: http://aircasting.org/ http://habitatmap.org/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fega.01 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

External link to SciStarter.com in the text
I removed the sentence that stated, "There are more than 1,000 active, searchable citizen science projects listed on SciStarter" with its in-text link to the SciStarter.com website. To me, that added no encyclopedic content. It appears that the intent is only to drive traffic to a commercial website. Checking that website, it shows beta in the logo indicating that the website may not be fully functional. I also used the FindAll and counted fewer than 700 projects. Some appear to be duplicates and some are regional or state sub-projects that are listed in addition to the main project. The SciStarter website is soliciting advertising and promoting "customized PREMIUM SERVICES" in a large banner at the top of their default page. SciStarter is also criticized for requiring sign-up before providing links to the listed projects (Google "Science for Citizens LLC", the parent company of the website). I judge that the external link violates Wikipedia guidelines on external links and that an external link to the SciStarter website is not appropriate at this time. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 15:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this. There had been more text, providing more encyclopedic content, but that too was deleted. The site is clearly fully functional and has been for quite some time. Beta is included as a nod to the fact that we are always working to improve the experience for citizen scientists. There are more than 1,000 projects. If the number of projects was in question, that could have been edited to read "700," no? If commercial sites are offensive in some way, I'm curious to learn why Scientific American and other for-profit sites where not edited off. I firmly believe they, and SciStarter have a right to be on this page. SciStarter does NOT require a sign-up before providing links to the projects. Indeed, many of the assertions in the above referenced post about SciStarter and Science for Citizens were and continue to be false. However, I can understand why that information would lead to a closer look here. I look forward to your feedback. (I do not have multiple accounts, but thank you for the link to more info about WP's rules agains that. I'm also not aware that I edited off any project. I'll review the history to reinstate the project, if I erroneously did that. Thanks for the heads-up.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darlenecavalier (talk • contribs) 21:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The project that was deleted was Canberra Nature Map. It has been restored. If you revert an edit, please check the whole list of changes, and be specially careful if you save an older version.
 * Could you provide a diff or a link to the historical page where the "more encyclopedic content" that was deleted can be seen?
 * Can you explain why the external link to SciStarter is justified in the lead paragraph? The article is not about SciStarter. The generally accepted place for appropriate external links is in the external link section, and more than one external link to a website from an article is generally not considered appropriate (links from references are an exception where a link is allowed as part of a reference, as it allows easy review of that reference).
 * You state: "We are always working to improve the experience for citizen scientists." This suggests that you have a close connection with SciStarter. Are you employed by SciStarter, and in particular, are you employed to edit on their behalf?
 * P|ease be specific as to the instance/s where "Scientific American and other for-profit sites were not edited off" so that we can investigate.
 * The number of projects could have been edited to the correct number, but Wikipedia editors are not obliged to make such corrections of fact. They are less likely to do so when the edit containing the inaccuracy does not comply with the WP:Manual of Style, and they dispute whether the information is appropriate in the first place.
 * When your edits are reverted, it is worth considering the explanation given in the edit summary. If you disagree, the recommended procedure is to not simply replace them, but to start a discussion on their merits on the talk page. Replacing without an explanation is considered uncivil if a plausible reason is given for the removal. Repeated replacement of identical text without discussion is considered WP:edit-warring.
 * Please sign your edits on talk pages. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

thank you @Pbsouthwood. This is very helpful.
 * Thanks for restoring Canberra Nature Map.
 * I'll look for the more comprehensive content I once saw posted in context to SciStarter. (I didn't post it.)
 * I see why an external link may not be appropriate in the lead paragraph. SciStarter is a research affiliate of Arizona State University. I will work with ASU and SciStarter to create a wiki page for SciStarter to include citations and other information. SciStarter shares its database via free APIs (CC BY SA) with the National Science Teachers Association, Discover Magazine, PBSKids, and (soon) the Citizen Science Association and federal agencies and these citations will be included in the new page.
 * I'm both a professor of practice at ASU and founder of SciStarter (however the original wiki entry for SciStarter was not posted by me).
 * I see that the sites I referenced (SciAm, etc) are external links.
 * Changes will include explanations on the talk page.

Thanks again for taking the time to share this information. 2601:86:8000:5C80:226:BBFF:FE13:C168 Darlene (Cavalier) talk:2601:86:8000:5C80:226:BBFF:FE13:C168|talk]]) 13:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

citizen science
(copied from my talk page)

Hi Peter, Thank you for keeping the Citizen Science Projects page up to date. It's not entirely clear to me why you keep editing SciStarter off the page, though. Can you help me understand or suggest another way we might add this important resource to the page? It's the largest source of citizen science projects so it seems fitting to include it on this page. Thanks for your insights. Darlene — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darlenecavalier (talk • contribs) 18:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Darlene, The correct procedure for discussing whether content is appropriate in an article is to open a discussion on the article's talk page, so I will copy your enquiry there, so other interested parties can contribute. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I refer you to the explanation above, from the editor (DocTree) who reverted your earlier edit, before you added the same material again without an explanation.
 * Please read WP:External links for the full text of the external links policy. You will find that external links in the main text are deprecated, and this is particularly the case for external links in the lead section.
 * You also removed the entry for Canberra Nature Map from the table without explanation. The project appears to be currently active, so you should explain why you removed the entry. There may be a valid reason, but it is not apparent.
 * The additional external link to SciStarter in the external links section may be defensible, but as it was added at the same time as the other edits, which were not compliant with Wikipedia procedure, it was thrown out with the bathwater. However I strongly recommend that you provide evidence that it is in fact useful and appropriate, or it may simply be removed again.
 * In the spirit of WP:Consensus, WP:DONTBITE and WP:BRD I will leave your latest edits until you have had the opportunity to persuade us why they should remain, provided that you do so within a reasonable period. I cannot speak for other editors, who may decide to revert without consulting either of us, which is their prerogative providing they can justify their actions.
 * Please sign your posts to any talk page by typing four tildes (~) after the edit. This will automatically add your username and a date stamp.
 * This may be an opportune moment to refer you, without prejudice, to WP:Multiple accounts and WP:COI, in case you are not aware of those policies. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Duplication of external links
It looks like each project in the list/table has an external link to the project website in the last column of the list/table. This appears to be a reasonable thing. However many of these external links are duplicated in the external links section. My initial leaning is towards keeping the link with the other data on the project, which is in the table, and reserving the external links section for links to other lists and related sites which are not actually citizen science projects, but I am open to persuasion for other logical arrangements. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 04:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it necessary or desirable to have multiple external links to a website from the same article?
 * 2) If not, which place is more suitable? The external links section, or the table, where the other relevant data is listed?

All links gone?
There are no more links to projects other than those pointing to wikipedia pages. I think it's a bit extreme: it would be better to either have an external link section, or to keep the links in the body of the article. It's very inconvenient to make people google all of the projects by name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.234.217.200 (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking at the history the page external links were removed as they were excessive external links per the linking policy. It surprised me it took this long before action was taken. Now creating pages per project that would meet the notability requirement would reduce need for searching for the sites and would be able to be linked from the list. There are existing work outside Wikipedia for comprehensive listing and some work in Wikidata to provide a list with additional criteria such as the various Citizen Science Associations and organizations like SciStarter. It could be that the links could be moved to this talk page without question to help with building the list, but it isn't the primary spot they should reside. With over thousands of citizen science projects out there this list would be too long and not manageable if it was comprehensive. Probably need to set criteria to make this list. Would be worth considering creating a taskforce for Citizen Science? If so, start a new section on for a task force and tag me. Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)