Play in Citizen Science (2011)

Universiteit Utrecht
Play in Citizen Science

Play in Citizen Science
Nick van Someren Brand // 3178137
24-10-2011
Game Studies // New Media & Digital Culture
dr. Sybille Lammes // WG2
Play in Citizen Science // Nick van Someren Brand // 3178137
Contents
Abstract
2
Keywords 2
Research Characteristics 2
Introduction
3
Citizen Science As We Know It
4
Counting Birds 4
Growth 5
Definitions 6
Distributed Thinking
7
Foldit 7
Related Projects 9
Definitions 9
Gamefulness
11
Play versus Game 11
Gamification 12
Definitive Definitions 13
Bibliography
14
Academic References 14
Non-academic References 15
Game Studies // New Media & Digital Culture // WG2 // Sybille Lammes
Abstract
In this paper, I aim to explore the contribution of human computation games to the fields of citizen science and game
studies. Citizen science is a collective noun for systems in which lay citizens contribute to scientific research by
providing empirical information. The dawn of human computation games not only heralded new fields of research into
the domain of citizen science, but boosted the concept to a new level. It also urged for new terminology, which is
quite diverse in both academic and popular writings. This paper will provide a meta-view of the discourses in an
attempt to set a definite, contemporary vocabulary.
Keywords
citizen science
human computation / distributed thinking
video games
play
gamification
discourse
Research Characteristics
Relevant field: game studies // linguistics // philosophy (of science)
Applied theory: citizen science // gamification // play
Applied method: discourse analysis // textual analysis
Introduction
Our results indicate that scientific advancement is possible if even a small fraction of the energy that goes
into playing computer games can be channelled into scientific discovery.

- Seth Cooper et. al. (Predicting Protein Structures 760)
This is the last sentence of a publication called Predicting protein structures with a multiplayer online game in
Nature magazine. With that title, Cooper et. al. refer to Foldit (2008), a free, downloadable game, in which players
interact with protein structures [...], while they compete and collaborate to optimize the computed energy (756). At
first, this task was performed through distributed computation -- a piece of software that volunteers can install on
their home computer to run externally controlled computations when it would otherwise be idle. Rosetta@home
(2005), the name of the project, would be visible to the volunteers as a screensaver. But soon, the developers would
receive complaints that the program was running too slow. People started writing in saying, I can see where it
would fit better this way, says David Baker, one of the founders of the project (Hand 685). The hypothesis that
humans may indeed be much more efficient at spatial manipulation than computers followed quickly. With it, the idea
to rebuild Rosetta@home as a puzzle game was born.
After several scientific publications on the subject, news on Foldit recently made its way to the general public through
the American channel MSNBC. After running for three years, a breakthrough was made: Video-game players have
solved a molecular puzzle that stumped scientists for years, and those scientists say the accomplishment could point
the way to crowdsourced cures for AIDS and other diseases (Boyle website). Often labeled a human computation
game, the results delivered by Foldit players indicate the relevance of what one could call the gamification of
science. This relatively new trend heralds new possibilities for scientific research, turning gamers into so-called
citizen scientists. Jonathan Silvertown defines a citizen scientist as a volunteer who collects and/or processes data
as part of a scientific enquiry (467). However, in both academic and popular writing, the link between human
computation games and citizen science is scarcely made. This results in poor definitions of both concepts and a lack
of consensus on what they encompass. Silvertowns definition is a good example. Foldit players collect nor process
data; they generate it. As I will show later on, human computation game is merely one of the possible terms for the
concept (I will use this term for the larger part of this paper to stay consistent, however). A somewhat confusing
discourse is the outcome.
In this paper, I explore the contribution of gameful design in human computation programs to the field of citizen
science and game studies. In doing so, I take a meta-position to reflect upon citizen science in an effort to redefine it
for contemporary standards. I search for an answer to the main question driving this paper:
As a link between citizen science and game studies, how do human computation games reflect upon those
discourses?
To tackle this issue, the body of this paper is divided into three chapters. First, I will go back to the roots of citizen
science by using the first known citizen science project as a case study and illustrate the diversity of applications it
has today. This chapter serves as an example with which human computation games can be compared. Secondly, I
will use Foldit as a case study to examine the burgeoning field of human computation games. In the final chapter, I
will classify human computation games within game theory and position it in the discourse of citizen science. The
main argumentation will consist of a discourse analysis of both concepts, supported by a textual analysis of the
games.
Citizen Science As We Know It

Money and science have an awkward relationship. Getting paid for scientific activities is actually a relatively new
phenomenon. Scientists from the olden days either had to have a secondary job or simply scrape by. Benjamin
Franklin (1706-1790) made a living off printing and politics and Charles Darwins (1809-1888) official role on the
Beagle was not that of a professional naturalist, but that of an unpaid companion to Captain Robert FitzRoy
(Silvertown 467). Being on the payroll is not the only factor that separates scientists from laymen, of course, but in
modern day society, it is an important one.
Counting Birds
The application of citizen science has been around for quite some time, although the term was not widely used until
the 1990s (Cohn 193). One of the first documented citizen science projects is that of the Christmas Bird Count
(CBC) run by the National Audubon Society in North America (Silvertown 467, Cohn 193). It begun in December
1900 as an initiative by Frank Chapman and still runs today (Silvertown 468). With a participatory growth from 27
birdwatchers to over 60,000, it is the largest wildlife survey known to contemporary science:
The CBC is the longest-running volunteer-based bird census anywhere, and its century's worth of
observation provides important insights into bird populations. By studying this information, scientists can
determine the winter distribution of birds, the status of resident and migrant species, and -- in recent years
-- the effect of such developments as West Nile virus (Standish website).
To explain what such a project entails: between 1900 and 1962, a team of participants was required to spend one
day, around Christmas time, counting birds in one of the coordinated fifteen-mile-diameter circles (Standish website).
Whereas counting in itself may seem a simple task, it requires a substantial amount of skill on behalf of the citizen
scientist -- not only attentive, but also the ability to perceptually discern the species is needed. Nowadays, the
collected information is available on the Audubon website free of charge. By releasing this data of over 63 million
counted birds, participants are enabled not only to gather it, but also to analyze it. The CBC data has brought forth
nearly 350 scientific papers and reports, including studies of population dynamics, community ecology,
biogeography and census methods (Silvertown 468). Another early example noted by Silvertown is the foundation of
the British Trust for Ornithology in 1932. The very purpose of this trust was to harness the efforts of amateur
birdwatchers for the benefit of science and nature conservation (467). Data gathered for this trust is now a part of
the database held by the National Biodiversity Network. The larger part of this database was gathered by amateur
naturalists, containing over 31 million records of over 27.000 British species of animals and plants. According to
Silvertown, many countries have similar programs in which citizen scientists are the fundament of biological recording
(467).
Growth
The distribution of bird counting among laymen lays at the origin of citizen science and still makes up for a
considerable part of citizen science projects today. In fact, Silvertown argues that citizen science projects in the areas
of ecology and environmentalism are burgeoning (467). He mentions three possible explanations for this sudden
growth, reasoned from a top-down perspective:
[...] the existence of easily available technical tools for disseminating information about projects and gathering
data from the public, including the Internet and mobile devices (467)
[...] the increasing realization among professional scientists that the public represent a free source of labour, skills,
computational power and even finance (Cohn, 193)
[...] it is in scientists own interest to make sure that the public appreciates the value of what they are paying
[taxes] for. Undoubtedly the best way for the public to understand and appreciate science is to participate in
it (469)
Rick Bonney, director of program development for Cornell University's Laboratory of Ornithology in Ithaca, New York,
takes the second explanation even further. Calling citizen science science 2.0, he claims that citizen scientists can
gather data that scientists could not have gotten any other way (Cohn 193).
Silvertowns explanations are not exclusive to the fields of ecology and environmentalism. The concept of citizen
science found its way to totally different scientific branches. The project finder on the Scistarter beta-website
illustrates this diversity. It serves as a portal to citizen science projects, ranging from archaeology to astronomy, sound
to physics, health to education (Scistarter website). Greg Newman et. al. give examples of what the purpose of those
projects may be: long term monitoring; scientific research; community networking; social empowerment; science
literacy improvement; environmental education; youth career development in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics; community service; and the preservation of traditional ecological knowledge (218). The consequences
of applying citizen science evidently stretch further than gathering data.
Indeed, with the Internet as a distribution network and the personal computer as tool and workplace, new life was
given to citizen science. It made distributed computation possible for projects like Rosetta@home. Nevertheless,
placing such distributed computation programs in the range of citizen science is highly debatable, since they do not
require any active input from the participant other than downloading and installing a piece of hardware. He or she
does so voluntarily, yes, but such software only serves to enlarge the computational power of the distributors
hardware. The participant takes no part in supplying data.
Definitions
As stated before, definitions of the concept citizen science can be quite divergent. The differences may be subtle,
but nonetheless significant. Without going to deep into it, it is relevant to cover the notions of citizen and science
individually before tackling the concept as a whole. In the Oxford Dictionary of English, science is defined as the
intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and
natural world through observation and experiment (n.p.). This definition appears to be applicable, but that of citizen
is focused on being a legally acknowledged subject to a state or country (n.p.). In Silvertowns definition of a citizen
scientist, citizenship is co-dependent of whether or not one receives a salary (volunteer). In an online discussion on
OpenScientist regarding the definition of citizen science, this voluntary aspect is formulated as avocational, meaning
as a hobby or minor occupation (OpenScientist website). Though in most cases true, the implication of a certain
amount of pleasure is problematic as it monopolizes the motives of citizen scientists. Also, participating in a citizen
science project is not necessarily a minor occupation.1 Indeed, acting of ones own free will is most suitable;
voluntarily participating does not imply motivation, nor the background of the participant. Experience, skill and
occupation of the participant is best left open in the definition. Even acknowledged scientists can serve as citizen
scientists as long as they serve as an unpaid assistant acting on their own initiative. This is why it is important to take
into consideration that a citizen scientist is a part of, an assistant, a citizen that is given direction from a top-down
perspective. In citizen science, distribution of the workload is central.
Now let us take a look at the diversity of definitions for the concept as a whole. On the OpenScientist website, the
outcome of the discussion is formulated as the systematic collection and analysis of data; development of
technology; testing of natural phenomena; and the dissemination of these activitiesby researchers on a primarily
avocational basis (OpenScientist website). (This definition has been adopted by Wikipedia.) To Bonney et. al., citizen
science enlists the public in collecting large quantities of data across an array of habitats and locations over long
span of time (977). In Jeffrey P. Cohns article, the participant is labeled a field assistant (193), but both define from
an environmental point of view. Andrea Wiggins draws upon this article for her definition, rephrasing citizen science as
a form of collaboration that involves the public in scientific research to address real-world problems (337). Not only
is there a noticeable difference in how the participant is labeled, also their activities are differentiated. Some try to pin
down the specifics (to collect, to test, to process etc.), whereas others keep it general (to involve, to enlist). This has
much to do with the opposite perspectives of respectively bottom-up versus top-down.
For example, Brian Hudson spent fifteen hours a day sifting through images in the Stardust@home project, with success. He was
the first to discover a probable piece of stardust, which was presented at the Lunar and Planetary Science Conference in Houston,
Texas (Hand 686).
Distributed Thinking
Although computer scientists have been trying to emulate our natural disposition for language, visual processing and
reasoning since the 1950s (Quinn & Bederson 1403), artificial intelligence has not caught up with us -- yet. Employing
humans to do what a computer cannot is a solution that researchers have only begun to explore over the course of
the last decade (1403). Networks of human minds are taking citizen science to a whole new level is the tagline for
Eric Hands article on human computation (685). Thanks to the Internet, again, distribution is no longer an issue. On
the other hand, making the computational tasks attractive for humans to partake in in their free time, is. Applying
gameful design proved to be a valuable asset in this regard. Not only does this make the task more immersive, it also
appeals to a new (and quite persistent) group of participants: gamers. To make a comparison with conventional
citizen science projects like the Christmas Bird Count, I will examine the workings of the Foldit project. Being one of
the most advanced, not to mention popular human computation games -- the article The Challenge of Designing
Scientific Discovery Games by Cooper et. al. included a list of more than 57,000 players as co-authors -- Foldit can
serve as a case study of how human computation games relate to game theory.
Foldit
The roots of Foldit lie in the SETI@home project, started in 1999 at the University of California, Berkeley (UCB). It was
a distributed computing program meant to process data from radio telescopes in the search for alien lifeforms. The
software was adapted into a generalized format by 2002, called the Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network
Computing, or BOINC (Hand 685). Derived from this software template, Rosetta@home was devoted to protein
folding: the notoriously difficult problem of [...] determining how a linear chain of amino acids curls up into a threedimensional shape that minimizes the internal stresses and strains -- presumably the proteins natural shape (Hand
685). The possibility to interact with the protein through the Foldit program was added in 2008. By turning it into a
game, the designers created an incentive to assist in the computation in an effort to make it fun (Cooper et. al., The
Challenge of Designing 40). They appealed to talents unique to the human race: a superior spatial awareness; an
ability to take short-term risks for long-term gain; and the converse, recognizing a dead-end early and knowing when
to quit (Hand 687). Even through distributed computation, computer algorithms have severe difficulties exploring the
thousand degrees of freedom that even small proteins have (Cooper et. al., Predicting Protein Structures 756).
So how does this multiplayer online game, as the designers refer to it, work? Presented as a three dimensional
puzzle, improperly folded protein conformations are posted online for a fixed amount of time. The point of the game is
to reshape these proteins in a way that leads to the least amount of Rosetta energy, translated into a positive high
score. The players current status is therefore quantified as a number. The program also shows a leader board with
the highest scores. To make the highly scientific contents more accessible, the designers took a number of
measures. The program starts with a tutorial that explains the interface and basic actions the user can take, including
the automated use of existing Rosetta algorithms. (These algorithms have a feedback loop with the players. New
playing tactics are sometimes converted into algorithms in game play.) Relevant terms and actions are linguistically
simplified (shake, clash, rebuild) and energetically frustrated areas are visually highlighted to guide the users
playthrough (Cooper et. al., Predicting Protein Structures 756-759).
The multiplayer online aspect of Foldit is somewhat overstated. Compared to the offline mode, the options of the
online mode are socially constructed and meant to guide the user. Even though the designers claim to have
incorporated the possibility to collaborate, it is only possible to share structures with their group members, and help
each other out with strategies and tips through the games chat function, or across the wiki (759). In terms of actual
gameplay features, this translates into a number of ways to visually superimpose other users results with ones own
(peekaboo, oracle). Real-time, cooperative folding is not possible. Instead of a multiplayer online application,
Foldit is better described as a socially enhanced singleplayer game. Krause et. al. also label it a single player game
which needs a downloadable client (22-23).
Related Projects
Although by far the most complex one known to me, Foldit is hardly the only application to call upon the human
superiority over computers. The first known human computation game is the ESP Game. As a participant, one is
digitally coupled with another user and both are shown a picture. The goal is to guess how your partner labels the
image -- immediately attaching the label to the image itself (von Ahn and Dabbish 320). Ho and Chen call this
simultaneous verification, whereas games as Peekaboom utilize sequential verification, referring to a turn-based
structure (4-5). For more human computation games applying relation learning and resource labeling, the website
GWAP.com is a good resource. Other purposes are natural language processing (Phrase Detective 2008) or semantic
content creation (OntoGame 2008). Within bioinformatics, there is also Phylo (2010), in which multiple sequence
alignment optimization is given form through pattern-matching puzzles. As opposed to Foldit, most of these
applications are web based and quite easy to perform. It is the huge amount of freedom that frustrates the process of
computation, in which we as humans intuitively find our way.
Human intuition can also be put to the test in a different way. The Dutch game developer Gameship is working
together with the police department of Apeldoorn for a project that enlarges the realm of human computation even
further. For their currently nameless, online project, the police department provides Gameship with factual data from
so-called cold cases, old cases which the police department has not been able to solve. Players will virtually be able
to search through databases, use a laboratory for audiovisual and DNA samples and look at evidence that was
acquired during the investigation (Gamekings interview). Calling upon the public in this way is completely new, but is
this human computation? Is the use of another term more prudent?
Definitions
Before analyzing whether these applications are really games or not, it is important to categorize and define the task
that the interface is built around. Human computation (or human-based computation) is most frequently used to label
this kind of performance. The paradigm seeks to harness human abilities to solve computational problems or
otherwise perform distributed that is beyond the scope of current [artificial intelligence] technologies (Jain & Parkes
58). Admittedly, human computation does not necessarily involve scientific research but has already proven its worth
in that area. Foldit is the ideal illustration hereof. As visible in Figure 1, human computation has a certain overlap with
other related concepts. In their taxonomy of human computation, Alexander J. Quinn and Benjamin B. Bederson
determine two elements inherent to this concept:
1. The problems fit the general paradigm of computation, and as such might someday be solvable by computers.
2. The human participation is directed by the computational system or process. (1404)
Games designed around this concept are one possible exportation of human computation and are given various
names, some of which are synonymous and some are not. However, the case of Gameships police game
problematizes human computation as a collective noun for

these applications. The police game definitely shares traits
with Foldit in that it appeals to the general public for the
advancement of a real-world problem, but saying that
computers will one day be able to take over detective work
from humans really is a stretch. Then again, I am not in a
position to state its impossibility.
Cooper et. al. categorize their program Foldit as a scientific
discovery game, a game that focusses on leveraging
human problem solving ability to solve computationally
difficult scientific problems (The Challenge of Designing
Scientific Discovery Games 40). Such issues are translated
to puzzles, so that non-expert players can help solve them
from within a game-like mechanism (40). Aside from its
scientific specificity, this latter addition makes the definition
of scientific discovery games diverge from that of human
computation games, which do not always come in puzzle
Fig. 1: Overlap between different

concepts of collective intelligence
(Quinn & Bederson 1403)
form. Other possible game designs are a multiplayer

environment or virtual world (Krause et. al. 22).
Also wide-spread is the term game with a purpose or GWAP (Jain & Parkes 58, Krause et. al. 22, Deterding et. al.
2). Adopted from Luis von Ahn, Shaili Jain and David C. Parkes state that the purpose of a GWAP is to get humans
to do useful work for free, in tasks that are easy for humans but hard for computers (58). First of all, this definition
has a manipulative ring to it, as if users are employed without their conscious consent. Second, the concept is too
broad, literally speaking. The implication of a game with a purpose in itself encompasses more than Jains definition
entails. Persuasive games as defined by Ian Bogost also fall into this this category, as their promise lies in the
possibility of using persuasive rhetoric to support or challenge our understanding of the way things in the world do or
should work (59). The purpose of such games is less concrete than what Jain means by GWAPs, but nonetheless
existent on an abstract level.
Another alternative referred to by Eric Hand in his aforementioned article is distributed thinking, counterpart to
distributed computation (685). A worthy addition to the concept of citizen science; it implies the active generation of
data instead of its collection or process, even though it lacks a scientific reference. This concepts also seems an
offset to the GWAP. In most cases, a GWAP is a conversion of an otherwise monotonous, simple task and as such
raises the impression to have a higher need to cover this up with a gameful design. On the other side of the spectrum
is Foldit. A complex game that requires a certain non-materialistic investment of the user and embeds the
contribution to scientific advancement as an incentive to participate. GWAPs do so too, but to a lesser extent: upon
starting Foldit, one is immediately confronted with news on recent publications and scientific results, whereas GWAPs
built in Flash make no such references (GWAP website).
Similar to distributed thinking, the most complete description is as obvious as it is rarely used: virtual citizen science.
Andrea Wiggins, who coined the term, states:
10
Virtual citizen science represents a novel form of distributed knowledge production that currently involves
millions of volunteer participants around the world. Technology is central to enabling these massive virtual
collaborations, which have demonstrated potential for advancing science at an unprecedented pace and
scale. (338)
In her article named Crowdsourcing Science: Organizing Virtual Participation in Knowledge Production, production
does not refer to the generation of data as distributed thinking does, but to the collecting, processing notion of citizen
science (337). Virtuality is approached as a organizational tool. Unintentionally, her definition of virtual citizen science
(VCS) covers a wide range of computer mediated projects, theoretically including games as the ESP Game and
Foldit. But to what extent can applications like Foldit really be called games?
Gamefulness
To say that human computation games are infused with play requires caution. Human computation games do
indeed show similarities to the elements that constitute play, but also discrepancies. Roger Caillois summarized
what play as an activity constitutes, based on Johan Huizingas definition in Homo Ludens. These discrepancies are
the aftereffect of the unique goal of human computation games: enabling non-expert natural problem solvers to
advance a specific scientific domain (Cooper et. al., The Challenge 40). Unlike games designed for entertaining or
educational purposes, human computation games have a very concrete link to real life, to the real world. This goes
against play elements such as standing outside of reality and, most importantly, being unproductive (Caillois 128).
Accordances with play theory are that one is not obligated to play Human computation games, which are governed
by rules imposed by the designers, within a separate space and timespan and with an uncertain outcome (128).
Play versus Game

The last two points are within a grey area, though. The outcome of a game usually results in win or loss, but not for
human computation games: Perhaps the most distinguishing feature and the greatest difficulty of design for this type
of game is that the solution to the scientific problem, and thus the solution to the corresponding puzzles, is
unknown (Cooper. et. al, The Challenge 40). This characteristic also problematizes the notion of the human
computation game having its own separate space and timespan, for the game does not come to a real conclusion. It
11
is true that an abstract space and timespan are erected and broken down when the player begins and stops playing,
but the outcome can always be refined or enlarged, lacking a true resolution. In Foldit, this is covered up by attaching
value to a high score in a leader board. By posting the proteins for a limited amount of time, a sense of closure is
created and the player hypothetically wins by having the highest score by the end of its availability.
So rises the question if human computation games are actual games or gamifications. It is very difficult to set the two
apart, concerning the varying definitions of what a game entails. Jesper Juul has attempted to define this concept,
collecting a series of definitions from the existing discourse:
A game is a rule-based formal system with a variable and quantifiable outcome, where different outcomes
are assigned different values, the player exerts effort in order to influence the outcome, the player feels
attached to the outcome, and the consequences of the activity are optional and negotiable. (Juul 35)
As a result of the assimilation of different definitions, this definition is quite broad and does entail human computation
games, but also gamifications. Much depends on the experience of the player. In this respect, human computation
games offer another perspective on this definition. Attachment to the outcome of the game does not necessarily
come forth from a need to compete, but can also be driven by a more altruistic wish to contribute to a cause beyond
that of the game itself. Either way, it is a successful motivation to participate.
Gamification
The lack of a true resolution and the intentions of
the designers are the main arguments for labeling
human computation games not as full-fledged
games, but as gamifications. Deterding draws
upon the definition of the commercial company
Bunchball to explain this concept: integrating
game dynamics into your site, service, community,
content or campaign, in order to drive
participation (Deterding presentation, Bunchball
website). To elaborate on this, a classification of
human computation games through Caillois
theory is appropriate.
When comparing playfulness to gamefulness,
human computation games definitely have a
tendency toward gamefulness or ludus, with their
constrained freedom and having a conflict as an
obstacle (Caillois 141-143). Here, the opposition
between game and gamefulness rises. Unlike most
Fig. 2: Gamification between gaming and playing, whole and parts

(Deterding et. al. 5)
full-fledged games, human computation games are

not born from a game design principle; a game design is applied to a scientific problem. Or, to be more precise,
gameful design is applied. Gameful design means designing for gamefulness, typically by using game design
12
elements (Deterding et. al. 3). This

predisposition is acknowledged by
researchers and designers of human
computation games, a significant factor in
discerning whether a program is a game or a
gamification. Jain and Parkes observe that
human computation has not borrowed
much from game theory and mechanism
design (58) and Cooper et. al. mention
providing the aforementioned game-like
mechanism for Foldit (The Challenge 40). In
their search for a definition of gamification,
Sebastian Deterding et. al. mention GWAPS,
in which game play is piggybacked to solve
human information tasks (2). This
description leads to an inconsistency in their
argumentation. With the properties of GWAPs
Fig. 3: Situating Gamification in the larger field (Deterding et. al. 5)
in mind separates serious games from gameful

design (Fig. 2), but places GWAPs in the range of serious games (Fig. 3).
Definitive Definitions
Where does this leave us? Considering the gameness of human computation games, the correct way to describe
such a game would be gameful. Alas, the term human computation does not suffice to describe the field it applies
to. GWAPs are associated with an extra gameful layer that is seemingly meant to keep the user from noticing he or
she is doing someone elses work, yet fall into the category of human computation. Now that more and more fields of
research are catching onto the benefits of outsourcing the generation of knowledge, the term human computation
has become too narrow (Gameships cold case project illustrates this). This field of outsourcing does not necessarily
include games or science, so the most logical choice of words would not be virtual citizen science, but distributed
thinking. Put together, the most optimal way to describe these applications would be gameful distributed thinking.
So how does (gameful) distributed thinking relate to citizen science? Evidently, it has added a variety of new fields of
research to its domain. Bioinformatics have never been a very accessible study to the general public, yet now
employs nearly 60,000 contributors through Foldit. But, as said before, distributed thinking does not have to be
scientific. From this perspective, there is a very large, but not all encompassing overlap between the two concepts.
For optimal consistency, it may be best to drop the term citizen science altogether. It implies a frame that will not be
sufficient when more fields of non-scientific research enter the domain of distributed thinking. Either that, or the
concept of science is up for a serious review.
13
Bibliography
Academic References
Ahn, Luis von and Dabbish, Laura. Labeling Images with a Computer Game. ACM Conference on Human Factors
in Computing Systems, CHI (2004): 319-326.
Bonney, Rick et. al. Citizen Science: A Deveioping Tooi for Expanding Science Knowiedge and Scientific Literacy.
BioScience 59.1 (2009): 977-984.
Bogost, I. Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2009.
Caillois, Roger The Definition of Play, the Classification of Games. The Game Design Reader: A Rules of Play
Anthology. Red. Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2006.
Cohn, Jeffrey P. Citizen Science: Can Volunteers Do Real Research? Bioscience 58 (2008): 192197.
Cooper, Seth et. al. Predicting Protein Structures with a Multiplayer Online Game. Nature 466 (2010): 756-760.
Cooper, Seth et. al. The Challenge of Designing Scientific Discovery Games. Proceedings of the Fifth International
Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games (2010): 40-47.
Deterding, Sebastian et. al. From Game Design to Gamefulness: Defining Gamification. Mindtrek 11 (2011): n.p.
Ho, Chien-Ju, and Kuan-Ta Chen. On Formal Models for Social Verification. HCOMP (2009)
Huizinga, Johan. Homo Ludens: Proeve Eener Bepaling van het Spel-Element der Cultuur. Haarlem: H.D. Tjeenk
Willink & Zoon N.V., 1951 (originally from 1938).
Jain, Shaili and Parkes, David C. The Role of Game Theory in Human Computation Systems. Knowledge Discovery
and Data Mining: Human Computation (2009): 58-61.
Juul, Jesper. The Game, the Player, the World: Looking for a Heart of Gameness. Level Up Conference (2003):
30-45.
Krause, Markus et. al. Frontiers of a Paradigm: Exploring Human Computation with Digital Games. Knowledge
Discovery and Data Mining: Human Computation (2010): 22-25.
Newman, Greg et. al. The Art and Science of Multi-scale Citizen Science Support. Ecological Informatics 6 (2011):
217-227.
Oxford Dictionary of English. 3rd ed. Edited by Angus Stevenson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
14
Quinn, Alexander J. and Bederson, Benjamin B. Human Computation: A Survey and Taxonomy of a Growing Field
CHI Session: Crowdsourcing (2011): 1403-1412.
Silvertown, Jonathan. A New Dawn for Citizen Science. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 24.9 (2009): 467-471.
Wiggins, Andrea. Crowdsourcing Science: Organizing Virtual Participation in Knowledge Production. GROUP
(2010): 337-338.
Non-academic References
Bunchball (2011) 12-11-2011
http://bunchball.com/products/gamification
Boyle, Alan. "Gamers Solve Molecular Puzzle That Baffled Scientists." Cosmic Log on MSNBC (2011) 16-10-2011
<http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/18/7802623-gamers-solve-molecular-puzzle-that-baffledscientists#.Tncy-AjtgFE.facebook>
Deterding, Sebastian. "Pawned. Gamification and its Discontents". Playful 2010. London (2010).
http://www.slideshare.net/dings/pawned-gamification-and-its-discontent
Hand, Eric. People Power. Nature 466 (2010): 685-687.
Standish, David. Tally-Ho-Ho-Ho. Audubon Magazine (2004) 09-11-2011
<http://archive.audubonmagazine.org/features0412/cbc.html>
Verwiel, Jop. Gameship. Gamekings interview 12.14 (2011) 09-11-2011
http://www.gamekings.tv/videos/gamekings-s12e14-14-de-studio-aflevering/
Citizen Science. Wikipedia (2011) 09-11-2011
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_science>
Finalizing a Definition of "Citizen Science" and "Citizen Scientists". OpenScientist (2011) 09-11-2011
<http://www.openscientist.org/2011/09/finalizing-definition-of-citizen.html>
Project Finder. Scistarter (2011) 10-11-2011
<http://scistarter.com/finder>
15

Play in Citizen Science (2011)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Play in Citizen Science (2011)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Universiteit Utrecht

Play in Citizen Science

Play in Citizen Science // Nick van Someren Brand // 3178137

Play in Citizen Science // Nick van Someren Brand // 3178137

Play in Citizen Science // Nick van Someren Brand // 3178137

- Seth Cooper et. al. (Predicting Protein Structures 760)

Play in Citizen Science // Nick van Someren Brand // 3178137

Citizen Science As We Know It

Play in Citizen Science // Nick van Someren Brand // 3178137

Play in Citizen Science // Nick van Someren Brand // 3178137

Play in Citizen Science // Nick van Someren Brand // 3178137

Play in Citizen Science // Nick van Someren Brand // 3178137

Play in Citizen Science // Nick van Someren Brand // 3178137

Play in Citizen Science // Nick van Someren Brand // 3178137

problematizes human computation as a collective noun for

Fig. 1: Overlap between different

form. Other possible game designs are a multiplayer

Play in Citizen Science // Nick van Someren Brand // 3178137

Play versus Game

Play in Citizen Science // Nick van Someren Brand // 3178137

Fig. 2: Gamification between gaming and playing, whole and parts

full-fledged games, human computation games are

Play in Citizen Science // Nick van Someren Brand // 3178137

elements (Deterding et. al. 3). This

Fig. 3: Situating Gamification in the larger field (Deterding et. al. 5)

in mind separates serious games from gameful

Play in Citizen Science // Nick van Someren Brand // 3178137

Play in Citizen Science // Nick van Someren Brand // 3178137

You might also like