Indeed. Especially for those of us who have the academic qualifications of a scientist, but not the requisite institutional affiliation. We see firsthand how arbitrary the dividing line is.
2 Likes
I’ve been watching some of Adam Savage’s videos lately, and this one reminded me of this forum topic:
https://youtu.be/2WFFhicVeXI?t=584
(I’ve made the link start at the relevant bit, but the whole video is pretty cool)
Can you share your presentation?
Ahem. Both terms apply. When, as an amateur naturalist, I use the site, I’m doing citizen science. All of us, together, are doing community science. So it’s a matter of whether you wish to refer to the activity of the individual or the enterprise as a whole.
These are my views as a professional editor, and apply to US English usage only.
I also like this, which I think subtly helps emphasize the “not locked behind a paywall” aspect of how we share information on iNat.
An amateur athlete, like an Olympian, may be regarded very highly. An amateur astronaut, like the guy who wanted to launch himself to prove the earth was flat, may not be. It’s not just the word amateur but also the word it’s paired with.
2 Likes
@kiwifergus - thank you I saw the whole video as i was not sure of the context. The section you indicate is on point.
An interesting article published two weeks ago on this very debate: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6549/1386
It’s behind a paywall (the irony of an article about inclusivity in science being paywalled…), so here’s a PDF of it for anyone interested:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1A6A_nkECKuTxtyyHQmcEpECVMjMXBBFV/view?usp=sharing
8 Likes
Im a Non-Citizen Scientist living Botswana and without citizenship of Botswana I am an alien. Perhaps I should call myself an Alien Scientist just as there are also alien species of plants and animals residing here.
8 Likes
Some of us don’t even have the “academic qualifications” and there is an even bigger chasm and a lot of, sorry to say, snootiness.
You really took it too personal, yes, I don’t agree with hiding some of the topics, not everything should lead to a change, sometimes people can say what they don’t like just for the sake of it and moderators can take a note and create separate topics, but even though posts are hidden it doesn’t mean iNat is not a community, like why would it change just because there’re some rules on the forum???
6 Likes
But hopefully not invasive.
1 Like
And deleting obnoxious material that does not conform to community standards and rules does not constitute suppression. All communities have rules. All communities enforce their rules.
Among the central aspects of citizenship is the duty to adhere to the rules and acceptance of community sanctions when rules are broken. iNat has its system for keeping things in bounds just like any other community.
4 Likes
This discussion is about the terms citizen science vs community science, which I know is also relevant to iNaturalist itself (although I agree with @pmeisenheimer that iNat doesn’t fit neatly into citizen/community science) so let’s please keep it focused on that.
@odole your post is about the iNaturalist Community Forum (this site) which, yes, is run by iNaturalist but it’s separate from the scientific aspect of iNat so I don’t think it’s relevant to this discussion. If you have issues with moderation, they belong in #forum-feedback or you can message me directly if you like.
1 Like
I, actually, was not aware of this. And you rightly point out what is potentially a fatal flaw.
1 Like
is an inaturalist member a citizen of “inaturalist” ?
Oh I thought he was referring to the “data” also, in that case I am partly mistaken.
If it is the forum and it has certain rules then we are bound by those rules when we sign up.
Not in any generally accepted sense of the word citizen.
my guess is more like “Commons” - every one benefits from a “resource” in this case the resources being both natures diversity and the facility offered by the platform.
For the former our endeavours may help promote better science, better policy and inform a larger community about biodiversity and conservation. For the latter we contribute time, effort and importanly following the norms set up – (though in a true commons there would be a “consensus” on the norms that are liable to change)
That’s part of what drives iNaturalist but it’s not the whole story. The primary function of iNaturalist is facilitation of learning about nature and biodiversity. The sciencey bits are a secondary (albeit important) aspect. It works by permitting conversations between its members, some as brief as posting an observation and receiving an ID and some as long and winding as this forum topic.
People don’t just use the resource, they contribute to it. It’s a community, with all of the pluses and minuses that go with that. It’s a community that exists within the context of technology provided by a non-profit with a management structure and rules, but a community nonetheless. On the other hand, the word community is derived from the Latin root communis, which means common.
Speaking for myself, I stick around because I enjoy the company (mostly) as much as for the resources. I don’t think I’m alone.
7 Likes