In this paper I will outline a worry that citizen science can promote a kind of transparency that is harmful. I argue for the value of secrecy in citizen science. My argument will consist of analysis of a particular community (herpers), a particular citizen science platform (iNaturalist, drawing contrasts with other platforms), and my own travels in citizen science. I aim to avoid a simple distinction between science versus non-science, and instead analyze herping as a rich practice [MacIntyre, 2007]. Herping exemplifies citizen science as functioning simultaneously within and outside the sphere of science. I show that herpers have developed communal systems of transmitting and protecting knowledge. Ethical concerns about secrecy are inherently linked to these systems of knowledge. My over-arching aim is to urge caution in the drive to transparency, as the concepts of transparency and secrecy merit close scrutiny. The concerns I raise are complementary to those suggested by previous philosophical work, and (I argue) resist straightforward solutions.

在本文中，我将概述一种担忧，即公民科学会促进一种有害的透明度。我主张保密在公民科学中的价值。我的论点将包括对特定社区（herpers）、特定公民科学平台（iNaturalist，与其他平台的对比）的分析，以及我自己在公民科学方面的旅行。我的目标是避免科学与非科学之间的简单区分，而是将疱疹分析为一种丰富的实践 [MacIntyre, 2007]。Herping 举例说明了公民科学在科学领域内外同时发挥作用。我表明，疱疹病毒已经开发了传播和保护知识的公共系统。对保密的伦理担忧与这些知识系统有着内在的联系。我的首要目标是敦促在推动透明度方面保持谨慎，因为透明度和保密的概念值得仔细审查。我提出的担忧与之前的哲学著作所提出的观点相辅相成，并且（我认为）抵制直截了当的解决方案。