Scrape wikipedia-science: 888 new, 932 updated, 1870 total (kb-cron)

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Alda_Center_for_Communicating_Science-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+---
+title: "Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Alda_Center_for_Communicating_Science"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:16:23.882024+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+The Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science is a cross-disciplinary organization founded in 2009 within Stony Brook University's School of Communication and Journalism, in Stony Brook, New York. Its current director is Laura Lindenfeld. Its goal is to help scientists learn to communicate more effectively with the public, including policymakers, students, funders and the media. It was inspired by Alan Alda, the actor, writer and science advocate, in whose honor it was renamed in 2013, and is supported by Brookhaven National Laboratory and Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.
+
+
+== Programs ==
+All Alda Center programs are based on the Alda Method, a form of communication training that blends improvisational theater exercises and message-design strategies. The Method helps scientists and researchers connect more directly with listeners and respond more spontaneously to their needs. By 2020 there had been 15,000 attendees at these improv workshops.
+In 2012, Alda and the Center issued the "Flame Challenge", asking scientists to come up with the best explanation for a flame for an intended audience of 11-year-olds.
+
+
+== References ==
+
+
+== External links ==
+
+Official website

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associação_Brasileira_de_Editores_Científicos-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+---
+title: "Associação Brasileira de Editores Científicos"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associação_Brasileira_de_Editores_Científicos"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:16:25.096255+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+The Associação Brasileira de Editores Científicos (ABEC Brasil), is a Brazilian nonprofit organization founded in 1985, and dedicated to the advancement of publication of scientific journals. ABEC Brasil is headquartered in Botucatu, São Paulo (state), Brazil and its president is Sigmar de Mello Rode.
+
+
+== History ==
+ABEC Brasil was founded on October 11, 1985, during the Second Meeting of Scientific Journal Editors, at ICB/USP. Its first President was Francisco Alberto de Moura Duarte.
+
+
+== Activities ==
+ABEC Brasil is interested in developing and improving the publication of scientific journals, and stimulates this through regularly publishing material of scientific editorial interest, promoting of conferences, seminars and courses, and maintaining contact with institutions and related societies in Brazil and abroad.
+
+
+== See also ==
+SciELO
+Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature
+National Council for Scientific and Technological Development
+
+
+== References ==
+
+
+== External links ==
+Official website

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Dinosaur_Project-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+---
+title: "Bristol Dinosaur Project"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Dinosaur_Project"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:16:26.253857+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+The Bristol Dinosaur Project is a public engagement and educational initiative run by the University of Bristol. It began in 2000, and since then the Bristol Dinosaur Project team has visited hundreds of schools and spoken to tens of thousands of children, as well as appearing at science fairs in Bristol and elsewhere.
+
+
+== Background ==
+The Bristol dinosaur, Thecodontosaurus antiquus, was found in 1834, and named in 1836, and did not achieve much recognition locally, either at the time of discovery, in the 1830s, nor later, when it was restudied, in the 1870s, 1900s, or 1990s. 
+After the re-examination of specimens collected in the 1830s, still located in Bristol City Museum and Art Gallery, and the collection of additional specimens from Tytherington quarry, in the 1970s, local paleontologists and geologists realised the potential to use the newly reinvigorated research programme as a means to include the public, especially local children, in the excitement of scientific discovery.
+
+
+== Funding ==
+Initially, the Bristol Dinosaur Project was funded by the University of Bristol using widening participation funds. These were funds intended to reach out to local schools that did not have a reputation for sending many children to university. By sending students to visit those schools, it was hoped that children will be inspired to later apply to study at university.
+The Bristol Dinosaur Project received substantial funding from the Heritage Lottery Fund, and was able to operate at a much more ambitious level, from 2010-2013. After that funding cycle, the University of Bristol continued funding of the project for widening participation purposes.
+
+
+== Engagement ==
+The Bristol Dinosaur Project aims to address children in two age groups: 7 to 9 year-olds and 14 to 15 year-olds. It focuses on teenagers and young adults rather than young children in order to encourage an academic pursuit in this subject.
+
+A recent evaluation report about the Bristol Dinosaur Project by David Owen, summarised the learning and engagement side of the project as follows:Since May 2010 the project engaged with over 136 schools and more than 13,200 pupils.  The majority of these pupils were Key Stage 1-2 (11,000) with the remainder being Key Stage 3-4 (2,000).  In total the project delivered 216 day visits to schools, reaching schools across Bristol, North Somerset, South Gloucestershire and Bath and North East Somerset.  The project also visited some schools in Somerset, Dorset, Wiltshire, South Wales, Gloucestershire and one in the West Midlands. 
+Interviews confirmed that the project had developed a reputation across the city with teachers, schools and organisations that support schools. This was attributed to the high quality resources and  professionalism of the volunteers and staff delivering the workshop. A major part of the schools’ outreach was the development of fossil walks; these were particularly targeted at Key Stage 3-4. Young people had the chance to visit Aust Cliffs, South Gloucestershire or Charmouth, Dorset, to find fossils and discover more about how they formed and what life was like in the past.In addition to its work with schools, the project team developed a wide range of partnerships with organisations across the city, in order to engage new audiences and hard-to-reach adults and young people with the project.  Evidence collected for this report suggested that the partnerships would have lasting impact beyond the HLF funding, and in particular had connected the discovery of the Bristol Dinosaur with the cultural heritage of the city.
+In three years the project visited a wide range of annual or one-off public events and festivals including the Bristol Festival of Nature, At-Bristol, the Cheltenham Science Festival, Arnos Vale Cemetery, libraries across South Gloucestershire, and Bristol's City Museum & Art Gallery. The project visited over 30 one-off or annual events in total, with the project team estimating a reach of 18,000 people (children and adults). These figures do not include the 650,000 people who visit the Bristol Zoo each year. 
+The reach of the Bristol Dinosaur Project was recognised as a successful in capturing new audiences. By building partnerships, the project benefitted from the efforts of other organisations to engage hard-to-reach groups of young people and adults. The project also sought to involve these young people and adults in a more sustained and transformational manner.
+In 2018, the Bristol Dinosaur Project was featured in the "Jurassic Make Off" series, a sponsored YouTube collaboration between the Let's Play channels Game Grumps and The Yogscast, where Education Officer Rhys Charles was cast as a competition judge alongside Ben Ebbrell of Sorted Food.
+
+
+== Laboratory work ==
+Laboratory work has always been the key component of the Bristol Dinosaur Project. The 1975 find from Tytherington Quarry consisted of some 4 tonnes of fossiliferous rock, and numerous technical staff and student volunteers have laboured over the years to remove the fossilised bones from the rock.
+The HLF funding allowed one side of a new paleontology laboratory to be built at the University of Bristol. This was used for the preparation and curatorial work done with over 4 tonnes of rock containing the remains of Thecodontosaurus and associated micro-fauna. For the first 2 years, the creation and development of a new research collection was one of the main activities in the laboratory. A new volunteering programme was developed at the University, and hundreds of volunteers (University students and external volunteers) worked under the preparator's guidance and supervision in order to process several hundred kilograms of rock by means of acid digestion, mostly using acetic acid. This process, even though very slow and painstaking, delivered results for the project's laboratory and research team: several thousand microfossils were recovered, studied and classified. The implementation of a new summer research programme enabled undergraduate and master students to take part in  more advanced research projects, aiming for scientific publication, while developing laboratory and scientific skills.
+The second year of the project marked the beginning of curatorial and preparation work. Tonnes of rock were prepared using mechanical or chemical techniques. Thousands of dinosaur bones were extracted and fully curated into a new research collection. Both micro and macrofossil collections are now housed at the University's museum, and are available for further research studies.
+
+
+== References ==
+
+
+== External links ==
+Official website
+Undergraduate student research website

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_communication-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+---
+title: "Science communication"
+chunk: 1/7
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_communication"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:16:22.672901+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+Science communication encompasses a wide range of activities that connect science and society. Common goals of science communication include informing non-experts about scientific findings, raising the public awareness of and interest in science, influencing people's attitudes and behaviors, informing public policy, and engaging with diverse communities to address societal problems. The term "science communication" generally refers to settings in which audiences are not experts on the scientific topic being discussed (outreach), though some authors categorize expert-to-expert communication ("inreach" such as publication in scientific journals) as a type of science communication. Examples of outreach include science journalism and health communication. Since science has political, moral, and legal implications, science communication can help bridge gaps between different stakeholders in public policy, industry, and civil society  with trust-building playing a central role in this process. 
+
+Science communicators are a broad group of people: scientific experts, science journalists, science artists, medical professionals, nature center educators, science advisors for policymakers, and everyone else who communicates with the public about science. They often use entertainment and persuasion techniques including humour, storytelling, and metaphors to connect with their audience's values and interests.
+Science communication also exists as an interdisciplinary field of social science research on topics such as misinformation, public opinion of emerging technologies, and the politicization and polarization of science. For decades, science communication research has had only limited influence on science communication practice, and vice-versa, but both communities are increasingly attempting to bridge research and practice.
+Historically, academic scientists were discouraged from spending time on public outreach, but that has begun to change. Research funders have raised their expectations for researchers to have broader impacts beyond publication in academic journals. An increasing number of scientists, especially younger scholars, are expressing interest in engaging the public through social media and in-person events, though they still perceive significant institutional barriers to doing so.
+Science communication is closely related to the fields of informal science education, citizen science, and public engagement with science, and there is no general agreement on whether or how to distinguish them. Like other aspects of society, science communication is influenced by systemic inequalities that impact both inreach and outreach.
+
+== Motivations ==
+Writing in 1987, Geoffery Thomas and John Durant advocated various reasons to increase public understanding of science, or scientific literacy. More trained engineers and scientists could allow a nation to be more competitive economically. Science can also benefit individuals. Science can simply have aesthetic appeal (e.g., popular science or science fiction). Living in an increasingly technological society, background scientific knowledge can help to negotiate it. The science of happiness is an example of a field whose research can have direct and obvious implications for individuals. Governments and societies might also benefit from more scientific literacy, since an informed electorate promotes a more democratic society. Moreover, science can inform moral decision making (e.g., answering questions about whether animals can feel pain, how human activity influences climate, or even a science of morality).
+In 1990, Steven Hilgartner, a scholar in science and technology studies, criticized some academic research in public understanding of science. Hilgartner argued that what he called "the dominant view" of science popularization tends to imply a tight boundary around those who can articulate true, reliable knowledge. By defining a "deficient public" as recipients of knowledge, the scientists get to emphasize their own identity as experts, according to Hilgartner. Understood in this way, science communication may explicitly exist to connect scientists with the rest of society, but science communication may reinforce the boundary between the public and the experts (according to work by Brian Wynne in 1992 and Massimiano Bucchi in 1998). In 2016, the scholarly journal Public Understanding of Science ran an essay competition on the "deficit model" or "deficit concept" of science communication and published a series of articles answering the question "In science communication, why does the idea of a public deficit always return?" in different ways; for example, Carina Cortassa's essay argued that the deficit model of science communication is just a special case of an omnipresent problem studied in social epistemology of testimony, the problem of "epistemic asymmetry", which arises whenever some people know more about some things than other people. Science communication is just one kind of attempt to reduce epistemic asymmetry between people who may know more and people who may know less about a certain subject.
+Biologist Randy Olson said in 2009 that anti-science groups can often be so motivated, and so well funded, that the impartiality of science organizations in politics can lead to crises of public understanding of science. He cited examples of denialism (for instance, climate change denial) to support this worry. Journalist Robert Krulwich likewise argued in 2008 that the stories scientists tell compete with the efforts of people such as Turkish creationist Adnan Oktar. Krulwich explained that attractive, easy to read, and cheap creationist textbooks were sold by the thousands to schools in Turkey (despite their strong secular tradition) due to the efforts of Oktar. Astrobiologist David Morrison has spoken of repeated disruption of his work by popular anti-scientific phenomena, having been called upon to assuage public fears of an impending cataclysm involving an unseen planetary object—first in 2008, and again in 2012 and 2017.
+
+== Methods ==

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_communication-1.md

@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+---
+title: "Science communication"
+chunk: 2/7
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_communication"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:16:22.672901+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+Science popularization figures such as Carl Sagan and Neil deGrasse Tyson are partly responsible for the view of science or a specific science discipline within the general public. However, the degree of knowledge and experience a science popularizer has can vary greatly. Because of this, some science communication can depend on sensationalism. Another point in the controversy of popular science is the idea of how public debate can affect public opinion. A relevant and highly public example of this is climate change. A science communication study appearing in The New York Times proves that "even a fractious minority wields enough power to skew a reader's perception of a [science news] story" and that even "firmly worded (but not uncivil) disagreements between commenters affected readers' perception of science." This causes some to worry about the popularizing of science in the public, questioning whether the further popularization of science will cause pressure towards generalization or sensationalism.
+Marine biologist and film-maker Randy Olson published Don't Be Such a Scientist: Talking Substance in an Age of Style. In the book he describes how there has been an unproductive negligence when it comes to teaching scientists to communicate. Don't be Such a Scientist is written to his fellow scientists, and he says they need to "lighten up". He adds that scientists are ultimately the most responsible for promoting and explaining science to the public and media. This, Olson says, should be done according to a good grasp of social science; scientists must use persuasive and effective means like story telling. Olson acknowledges that the stories told by scientists need not only be compelling but also accurate to modern science—and says this added challenge must simply be confronted. He points to figures like Carl Sagan as effective popularizers, partly because such figures actively cultivate a likeable image.
+
+At his commencement address to Caltech students, journalist Robert Krulwich delivered a speech entitled "Tell me a story". Krulwich says that scientists are actually given many opportunities to explain something interesting about science or their work, and that they must seize such opportunities. He says scientists must resist shunning the public, as Sir Isaac Newton did in his writing, and instead embrace metaphors the way Galileo did; Krulwich suggests that metaphors only become more important as the science gets more difficult to understand. He adds that telling stories of science in practice, of scientists' success stories and struggles, helps convey that scientists are real people. Finally, Krulwich advocates for the importance of scientific values in general, and helping the public to understand that scientific views are not mere opinions, but hard-won knowledge.
+Actor Alan Alda helped scientists and PhD students get more comfortable with communication with the help of drama coaches (they use the acting techniques of Viola Spolin).
+Matthew Nisbet described the use of opinion leaders as intermediaries between scientists and the public as a way to reach the public via trained individuals who are more closely engaged with their communities, such as "teachers, business leaders, attorneys, policymakers, neighborhood leaders, students, and media professionals". Examples of initiatives that have taken this approach include Science & Engineering Ambassadors, sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences, and Science Booster Clubs, coordinated by the National Center for Science Education.
+
+=== Evidence based practices ===
+Similar to how evidence-based medicine gained a foothold in medical communication decades ago, researchers Eric Jensen and Alexander Gerber have argued that science communication would benefit from evidence-based prescriptions since the field faces related challenges. In particular, they argued that the lack of collaboration between researchers and practitioners is a problem: "Ironically, the challenges begin with communication about science communication evidence."
+The overall effectiveness of the science communication field is limited by the lack of effective transfer mechanisms for practitioners to apply research in their work and perhaps even investigate, together with researchers, communication strategies, Jensen and Gerber said. Closer collaboration could enrich the spectrum of science communication research and increase the existing methodological toolbox, including more longitudinal and experimental studies.
+Evidence-based science communication would combine the best available evidence from systematic research, underpinned by established theory, as well as practitioners' acquired skills and expertise, reducing the double-disconnect between scholarship and practice. Neither adequately take into account the other side's priorities, needs and possible solutions, Jensen and Gerber argued; bridging the gap and fostering closer collaboration could allow for mutual learning, enhancing the overall advancements of science communication as a young field.
+
+=== Imagining science's publics ===
+In the preface of The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins wrote: "Three imaginary readers looked over my shoulder while I was writing, and I now dedicate the book to them. [...] First the general reader, the layman [...] second the expert [and] third the student".
+
+Many criticisms of the public understanding of science movement have emphasized that this thing they were calling the public was somewhat of an (unhelpful) black box. Approaches to the public changed with the move away from the public understanding of science. Science communication researchers and practitioners now often showcase their desire to listen to non-scientists as well as acknowledging an awareness of the fluid and complex nature of (post/late) modern social identities. At the very least, people will use plurals: publics or audiences. As the editor of the scholarly journal Public Understanding of Science put it in a special issue on publics:
+
+We have clearly moved from the old days of the deficit frame and thinking of publics as monolithic to viewing publics as active, knowledgeable, playing multiple roles, receiving as well as shaping science. (Einsiedel, 2007: 5)

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_communication-2.md

@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+---
+title: "Science communication"
+chunk: 3/7
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_communication"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:16:22.672901+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+However, Einsiedel goes on to suggest both views of the public are "monolithic" in their own way; they both choose to declare what something called the public is. Some promoters of public understanding of science might have ridiculed publics for their ignorance, but an alternative "public engagement with science and technology" romanticizes its publics for their participatory instincts, intrinsic morality or simple collective wisdom. As Susanna Hornig Priest concluded in her 2009 introduction essay on science's contemporary audiences, the job of science communication might be to help non-scientists feel they are not excluded as opposed to always included; that they can join in if they want, rather than that there is a necessity to spend their lives engaging.
+The process of quantifiably surveying public opinion of science is now largely associated with the public understanding of science movement (some would say unfairly). In the US, Jon Miller is the name most associated with such work and well known for differentiating between identifiable "attentive" or "interested" publics (that is to say science fans) and those who do not care much about science and technology. Miller's work questioned whether the American public had the following four attributes of scientific literacy:
+
+knowledge of basic textbook scientific factual knowledge
+an understanding of scientific method
+appreciated the positive outcomes of science and technology
+rejected superstitious beliefs, such as astrology or numerology
+In some respects, John Durant's work surveying British public applied similar ideas to Miller. However, they were slightly more concerned with attitudes to science and technology, rather than just how much knowledge people had. They also looked at public confidence in their knowledge, considering issues such as the gender of those ticking "don't know" boxes. We can see aspects of this approach, as well as a more "public engagement with science and technology" influenced one, reflected within the Eurobarometer studies of public opinion. These have been running since 1973 to monitor public opinion in the member states, with the aim of helping the preparation of policy (and evaluation of policy). They look at a host of topics, not just science and technology but also defense, the euro, enlargement of the European Union, and culture. Eurobarometer's 2008 study of Europeans' Attitudes to Climate Change is a good example. It focuses on respondents' "subjective level of information"; asking "personally, do you think that you are well informed or not about...?" rather than checking what people knew.
+
+=== Frame analysis ===
+Science communication can be analyzed through frame analysis, a research method used to analyze how people understand situations and activities.
+Some features of this analysis are listed below.
+
+Public accountability: placing a blame on public actions for value, e.g. political gain in the climate change debate
+Runaway technology: creating a certain view of technological advancements, e.g. photos of an exploded nuclear power plant
+Scientific uncertainty: questioning the reliability of a scientific theory, e.g. arguing how bad global climate change can be if humans are still alive
+
+=== Heuristics ===
+People make an enormous number of decisions every day, and to approach all of them in a careful, methodical manner is impractical. They therefore often use mental shortcuts known as "heuristics" to quickly arrive at acceptable inferences. Tversky and Kahneman originally proposed three heuristics, listed below, although there are many others that have been discussed in later research. 
+
+Representativeness: used to make assumptions about probability based on relevancy, e.g. how likely item A is to be a member of category B (is Kim a chef?), or that event C resulted from process D (could the sequence of coin tosses H-H-T-T have occurred randomly?).
+Availability: used to estimate how frequent or likely an event is based on how quickly one can conjure examples of the event. For example, if one were asked to approximate the number of people in your age group that are currently in college, your judgment would be affected by how many of your own acquaintances are in college.
+Anchoring and adjustment: used when making judgments with uncertainties. One will start with an anchoring point, then adjust it to reach an assumption. For example, if you are asked to estimate how many people will take Dr. Smith's biology class this spring, you may recall that 38 students took the class in the fall, and adjust your estimation based on whether the class is more popular in the spring or in the fall.
+The most effective science communication efforts take into account the role that heuristics play in everyday decision-making. Many outreach initiatives focus solely on increasing the public's knowledge, but studies have found little, if any, correlation between knowledge levels and attitudes towards scientific issues.

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_communication-3.md

@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+---
+title: "Science communication"
+chunk: 4/7
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_communication"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:16:22.672901+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+=== Inclusive communication and cultural differences ===
+Inclusive science communication seeks to build equity by prioritizing communication that is built with and for marginalized groups that are not reached through typical top-down science communication.
+Science communication is affected by the same implicit inequities embedded in the production of science research. It has traditionally centered Western science and communicated in Western language. Māori researcher Linda Tuhiwai Smith details how scientific research is "inextricably linked to European imperialism and colonialism". The field's focus on Western science results in publicizing "discoveries" by Western scientists that have been known to Indigenous scientists and communities for generations, continuing the cycle of colonial exploitation of physical and intellectual resources.
+Collin Bjork notes that science communication is linked to oppression because European colonizers "employed both the English language and western science as tools for subjugating others". Today, English is still considered the international language of science and 80% of science journals in Scopus are published in English. As a result, most science journalism also communicates in English or must use English sources, limiting the audience that science communication can reach.
+Just as science has historically excluded communities of Black, Indigenous and people of color, LGBTQ+ communities and communities of lower socioeconomic status or education, science communication has also failed to center these audiences. Science communication cannot be inclusive or effective if these communities are not involved in both the creation and dissemination of science information. One strategy to improve inclusivity in science communication is by building philanthropic coalitions with marginalized communities.
+The 2018 article titled "The Civic Science Imperative" in the Stanford Social Innovation Review (SSIR) outlined how civic science could expand inclusion in science and science communication. Civic science fosters public engagement with science issues so citizens can spur meaningful policy, societal or democratic change. This article outlined the strategies of supporting effective science communication and engagement, building diverse coalitions, building flexibility to meet changing goals, centering shared values, and using research and feedback loops to increase trust. However, the authors of the 2020 SSIR article "How Science Philanthropy Can Build Equity" warned that these approaches will not combat systemic barriers of racism, sexism, ableism, xenophobia or classism without the principles of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI).
+DEI in science communication can take many forms, but will always: include marginalized groups in the goal setting, design and implementation of the science communication; use experts to determine the unique values, needs and communication style of the community being reached; test to determine the best way to reach each segment of a community; and include ways to mitigate harm or stress for community members who engage with this work.
+Efforts to make science communication more inclusive can focus on a global, national or local community. The Metcalf Institute for Marine & Environmental Reporting at the University of Rhode Island produced a survey of these practices in 2020. "How Science Philanthropy Can Build Equity" also lists several successful civic science projects and approaches. Complementary methods for including diverse voices include the use of poetry, participatory arts, film, and games, all of which have been used to engage various publics by monitoring, deliberating, and responding to their attitudes toward science and scientific discourse.
+
+== Science in popular culture and the media ==
+
+=== Birth of public science ===
+While scientific study began to emerge as a popular discourse following the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, science was not widely funded or exposed to the public until the nineteenth century. Most science prior to this was funded by individuals under private patronage and was studied in exclusive groups, like the Royal Society. Public science emerged due to a gradual social change, resulting from the rise of the middle class in the nineteenth century. As scientific inventions, like the conveyor belt and the steam locomotive entered and enhanced the lifestyle of people in the nineteenth century, scientific inventions began to be widely funded by universities and other public institutions in an effort to increase scientific research. Since scientific achievements were beneficial to society, the pursuit of scientific knowledge resulted in science as a profession. Scientific institutions, like the National Academy of Sciences or the British Association for the Advancement of Science are examples of leading platforms for the public discussion of science. David Brewster, founder of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, believed in regulated publications in order to effectively communicate their discoveries, "so that scientific students may know where to begin their labours." As the communication of science reached a wider audience, due to the professionalization of science and its introduction to the public sphere, the interest in the subject increased.
+
+=== Scientific media in the 19th century ===
+There was a change in media production in the nineteenth century. The invention of the steam-powered printing press enabled more pages to be printed per hour, which resulted in cheaper texts. Book prices gradually dropped, which gave the working classes the ability to purchase them. No longer reserved for the elite, affordable and informative texts were made available to a mass audience. Historian Aileen Fyfe noted that, as the nineteenth century experienced a set of social reforms that sought to improve the lives of those in the working classes, the availability of public knowledge was valuable for intellectual growth. As a result, there were reform efforts to further the knowledge of the less educated. The Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, led by Henry Brougham, attempted to organize a system for widespread literacy for all classes. Additionally, weekly periodicals, like the Penny Magazine, were aimed to educate the general public on scientific achievements in a comprehensive manner.

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_communication-4.md

@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+---
+title: "Science communication"
+chunk: 5/7
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_communication"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:16:22.672901+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+As the audience for scientific texts expanded, the interest in public science did as well. "Extension lectures" were installed in some universities, like Oxford and Cambridge, which encouraged members of the public to attend lectures. In America, traveling lectures were a common occurrence in the nineteenth century and attracted hundreds of viewers. These public lectures were a part of the lyceum movement and demonstrated basic scientific experiments, which advanced scientific knowledge for both the educated and uneducated viewers.
+Not only did the popularization of public science enlighten the general public through mass media, but it also enhanced communication within the scientific community. Although scientists had been communicating their discoveries and achievements through print for centuries, publications with a variety of subjects decreased in popularity. Alternatively, publications in discipline-specific journals were crucial for a successful career in the sciences in the nineteenth century. As a result, scientific journals such as Nature or National Geographic possessed a large readership and received substantial funding by the end of the nineteenth century as the popularization of science continued.
+
+=== Science communication in contemporary media ===
+Science can be communicated to the public in many different ways. According to Karen Bultitude, a science communication lecturer at University College London, these can be broadly categorized into three groups: traditional journalism, live or face-to-face events, and online interaction.
+
+==== Traditional journalism ====
+Traditional journalism (for example, newspapers, magazines, television and radio) has the advantage of reaching large audiences; in the past, this is way most people regularly accessed information about science. Traditional media is also more likely to produce information that is high quality (well written or presented), as it will have been produced by professional journalists. Traditional journalism is often also responsible for setting agendas and having an impact on government policy. The traditional journalistic method of communication is one-way, so there can be no dialogue with the public, and science stories can often be reduced in scope so that there is a limited focus for a mainstream audience, who may not be able to comprehend the bigger picture from a scientific perspective. However, there is new research now available on the role of newspapers and television channels in constituting "scientific public spheres" which enable participation of a wide range of actors in public deliberations.
+Another disadvantage of traditional journalism is that, once a science story is taken up by mainstream media, the scientist(s) involved no longer has any direct control over how his or her work is communicated, which may lead to misunderstanding or misinformation. Research in this area demonstrates how the relationship between journalists and scientists has been strained in some instances. On one hand scientists have reported being frustrated with things like journalists oversimplifying or dramatizing of their work, while on the other hand journalists find scientists difficult to work with and ill-equipped to communicate their work to a general audience. Despite this potential tension, a comparison of scientists from several countries has shown that many scientists are pleased with their media interactions and engage often.
+However, the use of traditional media sources, like newspapers and television, has steadily declined as primary sources for science information, while the internet has rapidly increased in prominence. In 2016, 55% of Americans reported using the internet as their primary source to learn about science and technology, compared to 24% reporting TV and 4% reporting newspapers were their primary sources. Additionally, traditional media outlets have dramatically decreased the number of, or in some cases eliminated, science journalists and the amount of science-related content they publish.
+
+==== Live or face-to-face events ====
+The second category is live or face-to-face events, such as public lectures in museums or universities, debates, science busking, "sci-art" exhibits, Science Cafés and science festivals. Citizen science or crowd-sourced science (scientific research conducted, in whole or in part, by amateur or nonprofessional scientists) can be done with a face-to-face approach, online, or as a combination of the two to engage in science communication. Research has shown that members of the public seek out science information that is entertaining, but also helping citizens to critically participate in risk regulation and S&T governance. Therefore, it is important to bear this aspect in mind when communicating scientific information to the public (for example, through events combining science communication and comedy, such as Festival of the Spoken Nerd, or during scientific controversies). The advantages of this approach are that it is more personal and allows scientists to interact with the public, allowing for two-way dialogue. Scientists are also better able to control content using this method. Disadvantages of this method include the limited reach, it can also be resource-intensive and costly and also, it may be that only audiences with an existing interest in science will be attracted.
+Another opportunity for budding science communicators is through FameLab. This programme was created by Cheltenham Festivals in 2005 and is the largest science communication competition and training programme in the world. FameLab discovers, trains and promotes the best new voices in science (including social sciences), technology, engineering and maths. Participants have just three minutes to convey a scientific concept of their choice to an audience and expert panel of judges. The winner is the speaker who best demonstrates FameLab's 3 C's – Content, Clarity and Charisma.

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_communication-5.md

@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+---
+title: "Science communication"
+chunk: 6/7
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_communication"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:16:22.672901+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+==== Online interaction ====
+The third category is online interaction; for example, websites, blogs, wikis and podcasts can be used for science communication, as can other social media or forms of artificial intelligence like AI-Chatbots. Online methods of communicating science have the potential to reach huge audiences, can allow direct interaction between scientists and the public, and the content is always accessible and can be somewhat controlled by the scientist. Additionally, online communication of science can help boost scientists' reputation through increased citations, better circulation of articles, and establishing new collaborations. Online communication also allows for both one-way and two-way communication, depending on the audience's and the author's preferences. However, there are disadvantages in that it is difficult to control how content is picked up by others, and regular attention and updating is needed.
+When considering whether or not to engage in science communication online, scientists should review what science communication research has shown to be the potential positive and negative outcomes. Online communication has given rise to movements like open science, which advocates for making science more accessible. However, when engaging in communication about science online, scientists should consider not publicizing or reporting findings from their research until it has been peer-reviewed and published, as journals may not accept the work after it has been circulated under the "Ingelfinger rule".
+Other considerations revolve around how scientists will be perceived by other scientists for engaging in communication. For example, some scholars have criticized engaged, popular scholars using concepts like the Sagan effect or Kardashian Index. Despite these criticisms, many scientists are taking to communicating their work on online platforms, a sign of potentially changing norms in the field.
+
+==== Art ====
+
+According to Lesen et al. (2016), art has been a tool increasingly used to attract the public to science. Either formally or in an informal context, an integration between artists and scientists could potentially raise awareness of the general public about current topics in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM).
+The arts have the power of creating emotional links between the public and a research topic and create a collaborative atmosphere that can "activate science" in a different way. Learning through the affection domain, in contrast to the cognitive domain, increases motivation and using the arts to communicate scientific knowledge this way could increase dramatically engagement.
+One example is Ed Hawkins's warming stripes graphics which were included in Pirouette: Turning Points in Design, an exhibition of design icons at the Museum of Modern Art highlighting design "as an agent of change".
+
+=== Social media science communication ===
+By using Twitter, scientists and science communicators can discuss scientific topics with many types of audiences with various points of view. Studies published in 2012 by Gunther Eysenbach shed light on how Twitter not only communicates science to the public but also affects advances in the science community. However, as of 2024, engagement from academics reduced on Twitter.
+Alison Bert, editor in chief of Elsevier Connect, wrote a 2014 news article titled "How to use social media for science" that reported on a panel about social media at that year's AAAS meeting, in which panelists Maggie Koerth-Baker, Kim Cobb, and Danielle N. Lee noted some potential benefits and drawbacks to scientists of sharing their research on Twitter. Koerth-Baker, for example, commented on the importance of keeping public and private personas on social media separate in order to maintain professionalism online.
+Interviewed in 2014, Karen Peterson, director of Scientific Career Development at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center stressed the importance for scientists of using social networks such as Facebook and Twitter to establish an online presence.
+Kimberly Collins et al., writing in PLOS One in 2016, explained reasons why some scientists were hesitant to join Twitter. Some scientists were hesitant to use social media outlets such as Twitter due to lack of knowledge of the platform, and inexperience with how to make meaningful posts. Some scientists did not see the meaning in using Twitter as a platform to share their research or have the time to add the information into the accounts themselves.
+In 2016, Elena Milani created the SciHashtag Project, which is a condensed collection of Twitter hashtags about science communication.
+In 2017, a study done by the Pew Research Center found that about "a quarter of social media users (26%) follow science accounts" on social media. This group of users "places both more importance and comparatively more trust on science news that comes to them through social media".
+Scientists have also used other social media platforms, including Instagram and Reddit, to establish a connection with the public and discuss science.
+
+== The public understanding of science movement ==

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_communication-6.md

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+---
+title: "Science communication"
+chunk: 7/7
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_communication"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:16:22.672901+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+"Public understanding of science", "public awareness of science" and "public engagement with science and technology" are all terms coined with a movement involving governments and societies in the late 20th century. During the late 19th century, science became a professional subject and influenced by governmental suggestions. Prior to this, public understanding of science was very low on the agenda. However, some well-known figures such as Michael Faraday ran lectures aimed at the non-expert public, his being the famous Christmas Lectures which began in 1825.
+The 20th century saw groups founded on the basis they could position science in a broader cultural context and allow scientists to communicate their knowledge in a way that could reach and be understood by the general public. In the UK, The Bodmer Report (or The Public Understanding of Science as it is more formally known) published in 1985 by The Royal Society changed the way scientists communicated their work to the public. The report was designed to "review the nature and extent of the public understanding of science in the United Kingdom and its adequacy for an advanced democracy". Chaired by the geneticist Sir Walter Bodmer alongside famous scientists as well as broadcaster Sir David Attenborough, the report was evidenced by all of the major sectors concerned; scientists, politicians, journalists and industrialists but not the general public. One of the main assumptions drawn from the report was everybody should have some grasp of science and this should be introduced from a young age by teachers who are suitably qualified in the subject area. The report also asked for further media coverage of science including via newspapers and television which has ultimately led to the establishment of platforms such as the Vega Science Trust.
+In both the UK and the United States following the Second World War, public views of scientists swayed from great praise to resentment. Therefore, the Bodmer Report highlighted concerns from the scientific community that their withdrawal from society was causing scientific research funding to be weak. Bodmer promoted the communication of science to a wider more general public by expressing to British scientists that it was their responsibility to publicize their research. An upshot of the publication of the report was the creation of the Committee on the Public Understanding of Science (COPUS), a collaboration between the British Association for the Advancement of Science, the Royal Society and the Royal Institution. The engagement between these individual societies caused the necessity for a public understanding of science movement to be taken seriously. COPUS also awarded grants for specific outreach activities allowing the public understanding to come to the fore. Ultimately leading to a cultural shift in the way scientists publicized their work to the wider non-expert community. Although COPUS no longer exists within the UK the name has been adopted in the US by the Coalition on the Public Understanding of Science. An organization which is funded by the US National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Foundation and focuses on popular science projects such as science cafes, festivals, magazines and citizen science schemes.
+In the European Union, public views on public-funded research and the role of governmental institutions in funding scientific activities were being questioned as the budget allocated was increasing. Therefore, the European Commission encouraged strongly and later obligated research organizations to communicate about their research activities and results widely and to the general public. This is being done by integrating a communication plan into their research project that increases the public visibility of the project using an accessible language and adapted channels and materials.
+
+== See also ==
+Conversazione
+Hype in science
+List of science communicators
+Public awareness of science
+Science-to-business marketing
+
+== Notes and references ==
+
+== Further reading ==
+Bauer, M & Bucchi, M (eds) (2007). Journalism, Science and Society (London & New York: Routledge).
+Bucchi, M & Trench, B (eds) (2014). Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology (2nd ed.) (London & New York: Routledge).
+Cartwright, JH & Baker, B (2005). Literature and Science: Social Impact and Interaction (Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO).
+Drake, JL et al. (eds) (2013). New Trends in Earth-Science Outreach and Engagement: The Nature of Communication (Cham, Switzerland: Springer).
+Fortenberry, RC (2018). Complete Science Communication: A Guide to Connecting with Scientists, Journalists and the Public (London: Royal Society of Chemistry).
+Gregory, J & Miller, S (1998). Science in Public: Communication, Culture and Credibility (New York: Plenum).
+Holliman, R et al. (eds) (2009). Investigating Science Communication in the Information Age: Implications for Public Engagement and Popular Media (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
+National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2016). Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press). doi:10.17226/23674 
+Nelkin, D (1995). Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science & Technology, 2nd edition (New York: WH Freeman).
+Wilson, A et al. (eds.) (1998). Handbook of Science Communication (Bristol; Philadelphia: Institute of Physics).

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigie-Cratère-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+---
+title: "Vigie-Cratère"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigie-Cratère"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:16:15.106915+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+Vigie-Cratère is a citizen science project from France in which laypeople help scientists find craters on the surface of the Earth left by meteorites by viewing satellite photographs.
+Vigie-Cratère is part of a larger program called Vigie-Ciel. France's National Museum of Natural History, CNRS, University of Paris Saclay, Institut de recherche pour le développement, Paris Observatory, Grenoble Alpes University, Universcience, the Pythéas Institute, and the Natural History Museum Vienna pay for Vigie-Cratère.
+
+
+== References ==
+
+
+== External links ==
+Official website

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visionature-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+---
+title: "Visionature"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visionature"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:16:16.284148+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+Visionature is a citizen science program initiated by the Ligue pour la protection des oiseaux (LPO) in 2007. It is now managed by around fifty French associations under the Faune-France umbrella and coordinated by the Ligue pour la protection des oiseaux. Its goal is to qualitatively and quantitatively expand knowledge about numerous species found in metropolitan France, track their evolution, and support conservation efforts.
+The program allows participating amateur naturalists to record observations of various taxa through the Faune-France web portal. This nature platform contains over fifty million data points, with birds making up the majority.
+Used in about a dozen European countries, the Visionature system centralizes nearly 300 million data points collected through various means including the mobile app NaturaList.
+
+
+== References ==
+
+"Visionature : la science participative au service des oiseaux". lpo.fr. 2 March 2011. Retrieved 31 December 2023.
+
+
+== External links ==
+Faune-France web portal

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiAves-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+---
+title: "WikiAves"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiAves"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:16:17.562511+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+WikiAves is a free Brazilian site of bird watchers and aims to support, publicize and promote the activity of bird watching, through photographic and sound records, species identification and communication between observers. On the site are registered photos and sounds of bird species that occur in Brazil.
+The site was founded on December 16, 2008, and developed by Reinaldo Guedes.  As of December 2018, there were over 2.4 million photos and 150,000 sound recordings of 1,880 different species, contributed by 30,000 users. Users contribute images and sound files, along with tentative identifications, and the community helps confirm the species photographed.
+According to Fatbirder's Birding Website, WikiAves ranks first in online popularity of bird watching sites. According to the Commented List of birds of Brazil by the Brazilian Ornithological Registries Committee, 1919 bird species have been identified in Brazil. So 98.3% of bird species scientifically registered in Brazil have a WikiAves record.
+
+
+== References ==
+
+Luigi, Ceccaroni; Jaume, Piera (October 25, 2016). Analyzing the Role of Citizen Science in Modern Research (in English). [S.l.]: IGI Global. ISBN 9781522509639

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Water_Monitoring_Day-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+---
+title: "World Water Monitoring Day"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Water_Monitoring_Day"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:16:18.672730+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+World Water Monitoring Day was an international day established in 2003 by America's Clean Water Foundation (ACWF) as a global educational outreach program. The program, subsequently named the "World Water Monitoring Challenge" and "EarthEcho Water Challenge," aims to build public awareness and involvement in protecting water resources around the world by empowering citizens to carry out basic monitoring of their local water bodies. Roberta (Robbi) Savage, ACWF's president and CEO created WWMD, and Edward Moyer was the first WWMD Coordinator.
+A simple test kit enables everyone, children and adults, to sample local water bodies for a set of water quality parameters including temperature, acidity (pH), clarity (turbidity) and dissolved oxygen (DO). Information on purchasing low-cost test kits is available from the current sponsoring organization, EarthEcho International, and the results of monitoring events are then shared with participating communities around the globe on the sponsor's website.
+World Water Monitoring Day was originally celebrated annually on September 18. This date was initially chosen to be a month later (October 18) to recognize the anniversary of the US Clean Water Act, which was enacted by Congress in 1972 to restore and protect the country's water resources. In 2007, the date was changed to facilitate participation in parts of the world where temperatures reach freezing conditions at that time.
+In 2006, ACWF transferred the coordination of the event to the Water Environment Federation (WEF) and the International Water Association (IWA). The collective goal was to expand participation to one million people in 100 countries by 2012. In January 2015 the management of World Water Monitoring Day was transferred to EarthEcho International.
+2008 saw students from Indonesia to Arkansas taking part in water sampling to bring attention to the importance of water quality.
+As of 2018, EarthEcho International encourages participants to conduct their monitoring activities as part of the "EarthEcho Water Challenge" during any period between March 22 (World Water Day) and December of each year.
+
+
+== See also ==
+International trade and water
+
+
+== References ==
+
+
+== External links ==
+EarthEcho Water Challenge - Official site

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeno-canto-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+---
+title: "Xeno-canto"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeno-canto"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:16:19.904482+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+xeno-canto is a citizen science project and repository in which volunteers record, upload and annotate recordings of birds, orthoptera, bats, frogs and land mammals. Since it began in 2005, it has collected over 1,000,000 sound recordings from more than 12,900 species worldwide, and has become one of the biggest open collections of wildlife sounds in the world. All the recordings are published under one of the Creative Commons licenses, including some with open licences. Each recording on the website is accompanied by a spectrogram and location data on a map displaying geographical variation.
+Data from xeno-canto has been re-used in many (a few thousand) scientific papers. It has also been the source of data for an annual challenge on automatic birdsong recognition ("BirdCLEF") since 2014, conducted as part of the Conference and Labs of the Evaluation Forum.
+The website is supported by a number of academic and birdwatching institutions worldwide, with its primary support being in the Netherlands.
+
+
+== History ==
+xeno-canto, which translates to "strange sound", is a sounds-only project seeking to highlight sounds of birds, rather than images or videos. xeno-canto was launched on May 30, 2005, by Bob Planqué, a mathematical biologist at VU University Amsterdam, and Willem-Pier Vellinga, a physicist who now consults for a global materials technology company. At the time of the launch, the site held recordings of only about 160 species and originally aimed to collect recordings of birds from Central and South America.
+
+
+== Growth ==
+xeno-canto has now become global, expanding its coverage to North America, Africa and Asia, and finally to Europe and Australasia. By 2017, the data collection showed significant growth, containing about 360,000 recordings of about 9,750 bird species (which is nearly 90 percent of all bird species). Nevertheless, the collection is still far from complete. There are about 1,000 missing species, and for many species, there are only a few recordings, meaning they lack the variation in repertoire and dialect that the species display.
+
+
+== Goals ==
+xeno-canto aims to utilize the capabilities of the internet to improve the general popularity, accessibility, and knowledge of bird sounds. So far, the recordings on xeno-canto have seen use in a variety of different ways including being featured on the Aviation Information System of India, contributing to the STERNA project, and being included in a Norwegian University's database.
+Since its founding, the website has set a number of set principles in order to keep the service community-driven. These principles include:
+
+Anybody can contribute to the project. Aside from a few restrictions on the file size, users can upload any bird sound they find interesting. On top of uploading recordings, users can also write articles, comment on recording achievements, and even contribute to the website's code.
+Recordings are shared. The Creative Commons licenses implemented by the website promote sharing. The bird sounds uploaded are intended to be re-used. Users can download individual recordings found when browsing or access the entire collection's database.
+Recordings can be challenged. Fellow users can flag a recording as having an incorrect identification. The recording is then reviewed until agreed upon by the community, and the flag is reset by administrators. This process can vary in length, but most often takes a few days.
+
+
+== References ==
+
+
+== External links ==
+
+Official website

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zooniverse-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
+---
+title: "Zooniverse"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zooniverse"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:16:21.065704+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+Zooniverse is a global platform for people-powered research, also known as participatory science or citizen science. It is a collaboration between Chicago’s Adler Planetarium, the University of Oxford, and the University of Minnesota. It is home to some of the Internet's largest, most popular and most successful citizen science projects.
+
+
+== Background ==
+The organization grew from the original Galaxy Zoo project and now hosts dozens of projects which allow volunteers to participate in crowdsourced scientific research. It has headquarters at Oxford University and the Adler Planetarium. Unlike many early internet-based citizen science projects (such as SETI@home) which used spare computer processing power to analyse data, known as volunteer computing, Zooniverse projects require the active participation of human volunteers to complete research tasks. Projects have been drawn from disciplines including astronomy, ecology, cell biology, humanities, and climate science.
+As of 14 February 2014, the Zooniverse community consisted of more than 1 million registered volunteers. By March 2025, the number had risen to over 2.7 million. The volunteers are often collectively referred to as "Zooites".  The data collected from the various projects has led to the publication of more than 450 peer-reviewed research publications. A daily news website called 'The Daily Zooniverse' provides information on the different projects under the Zooniverse umbrella, and has a presence on social media.
+The founder and former principal investigator (P.I.) of the project, Chris Lintott, published a book called The Crowd & the Cosmos: Adventures in the Zooniverse in 2019. In September 2023 the role of P.I. was taken over by Laura Trouille, VP of Science Engagement at the Adler Planetarium, who was co-P.I. for Zooniverse from 2015 to 2023.
+
+
+== Project Builder ==
+Zooniverse supports Project Builder, a tool that allows anyone to create their own project by uploading a dataset of images, video files or sound files. In Project Builder a Project Owner creates a workflow for the projects, a tutorial, a field guide and the talk forum of the Project and can add collaborators, researchers and moderators to their project. The moderators for example will have partial administrator rights in the talk, but cannot change anything concerning the workflow.
+
+
+== Zooniverse Mobile App ==
+Only certain kinds of projects can be enabled on Zooniverse mobile app (Android & iOS).
+
+
+== Projects ==
+
+
+=== Art projects ===
+
+
+=== Space projects ===
+
+
+=== Nature and climate projects ===
+
+
+=== Biology Projects ===
+
+
+=== Humanities projects ===
+
+
+=== Physics projects ===
+
+
+== Retired projects ==
+
+
+== See also ==
+Amateur exoplanet discoveries
+9Spitch – Galaxy in the constellation CetusPages displaying short descriptions of redirect targets
+AWI0005x3s – Red dwarf star in the constellation CarinaPages displaying short descriptions of redirect targets
+LSPM J0207+3331 – Star in the constellation Taurus
+Hanny's Voorwerp – Astronomical object appearing as a bright blob, discovered by Hanny van Arkel
+Green Pea Galaxies – Possible type of luminous blue compact galaxy
+K2-138 – Star in the constellation Aquarius
+PH1b – Circumbinary Neptunian planet orbiting the Kepler-64 star system
+Stargazing Live – Live BBC television programme
+Tabby's Star – Star noted for unusual dimming events
+
+
+== References ==
+ Media related to Zooniverse at Wikimedia Commons