To Volunteer or to Contribute Locational Information? Towards Truth in Labeling for Crowdsourced Geographic Information



Geographers, planners, and others increasingly refer to crowdsourced data in geography as volunteered geographic information (VGI). But is volunteered the right adjective to use for all types of crowdsourced geographic information? This chapter examines this question by making the following distinction along an ethical line for crowdsourced data collection: data collected following an “opt-in” agreement is volunteered; data collected under an “opt-out” provision is contributed (CGI). Opt-in agreements provide some clarity and control in the collection and intended reuse of collected data. Opt-out agreements are, in comparison, very open-ended and begin with few, if any, possibilities to control data collection. The chapter suggests that distinguishing contributed crowdsourced data from volunteered crowdsourced data is important to start to understand the nature of sources of crowdsourced data of any provenance and to help begin to identify possible biases. In the concluding discussion, this chapter argues that the simple distinction between CGI and VGI is valuable for assessments of data’s fitness for use. Following the truth-in-labeling principle known for food products, differentiating between CGI and VGI is also helpful to identify cases where lax approaches or even malfeasance leads to inaccurate or biased crowdsourced data.


Geographic Information Location Privacy Volunteer Geographic Information Mobile Phone Data Assess Data Quality 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



In addition to helpful comments and discussion at the 2011 workshop in Seattle, the comments of two anonymous reviewers and editors have been very helpful in improving this chapter.


  1. Acohido, B. (2011). Privacy implications of ubiquitous digital sensors. USA Today, January 26, 2011, P1B.Google Scholar
  2. Biermann, K. (2011). Betrayed by our own data. Die Zeit Online, March 26, 2011.–03/data-protection-malte-spitz. Accessed August 26, 2011.Google Scholar
  3. Blakemore, M., & Longhorn, R. (2004). Ethics and GIS: The practitioner’s dilemma. In AGI 2004 Conference Workshop on GIS Ethics.Google Scholar
  4. Bowker, G. C. (2000). The world of biodiversity: Data and metadata. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 14(8), 739–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cheney, J., Chiticariu, L., & Tan, W. C. (2009). Provenance in databases: Why, how, and where. Foundations and Trends in Databases, 1(4), 379–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chrisman, N. R. (1994). Metadata required to determine the fitness of spatial data for use in environmental analysis. In W. K. Michener, J. W. Brunt, & S. G. Stafford (Eds.), Environmental information management and analysis: Ecosystem to global scales (pp. 177–190). London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  7. Chrisman, N. R. (1999). Speaking truth to power: An agenda for change. In K. Lowell & A. Jaton (Eds.), Spatial accuracy assessment. Land information uncertainty in natural resources. Chelsea: Ann Arbor Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cloke, P., Johnsen, S., & May, J. (2007). Ethical citizenship? Volunteers and the ethics of providing services for homeless people. Geoforum, 38(6), 1089–1101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Critchley, S. (2007). Infinitely demanding: Ethics of commitment, politics of resistance. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  10. Dobson, J. E., & Fisher, P. F. (2003). Geoslavery. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 22(1), 47–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Duval, E., Hodgkins, W., Sutton, S., Weibel, S. L. et al. (2002). Metadata principles and practicalities. D-Lib Magazine 8(4).
  12. Elwood, S., & Leszczynski, A. (2011). Privacy, reconsidered: New representations, data practices, and the Geoweb. GeoJournal, 42(1), 6–15.Google Scholar
  13. Goodchild, M.F. (1992). Sharing imperfect data. Available on-line at:∼good/papers/228.pdf. Accessed August 26, 2011Google Scholar
  14. Goodchild, M. F. (1995). Sharing imperfect data. In H. J. Onsrud & G. Rushton (Eds.), Sharing geographic information (pp. 413–425). New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Goodchild, M. F. (2007). Citizens as voluntary sensors: Spatial data infrastructure in the world of Web2.0. International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research, 2, 24–32.Google Scholar
  16. Harvey, F. (2002). Visualizing data quality through interactive metadata browsing in a VR environment. In P. F. Fisher & D. Unwin (Eds.), Re-presenting GIS. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  17. Harvey, F. (2003). Developing geographic information infrastructures for local government: The role of trust. The Canadian Geographer, 47(1), 28–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harvey, F. (2012). Practical ethics for professional geographers. In M. Solem, K. Foote, & J. Monk (Eds.), Practicing geography: Careers for enhancing society and the environment. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  19. Kim, T. J. (1999). Metadata for geo-spatial data sharing: A comparative analysis. The Annals of Regional Science, 33(2), 171–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kwame, A. A. (2008). Experiments in ethics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Lanter, D. P. (1991). Design of a lineage meta-database for GIS. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems, 18(4), 255–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Liptak, A. (2011). Court case asks if ‘Big Brother’ is spelled GPS. The New York Times, online. Accessed August 26, 2011.
  23. Moreau, L., Groth, P., Miles, S., Vazquez, J., Ibbotson, J., Jiang, S., Munroe, S., Rana, O., Schreiber, A., Tan, V., & Varga, L. (2008). The provenance of electronic data. Communications of the ACM, 51(4), 52–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. National Research Council. (2007). Putting people on the map: Protecting confidentiality with linked social-spatial data. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  25. Onsrud, H. (1995). Identifying unethical conduct in the use of GIS. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems, 22(1), 90–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Onsrud, H. (1997). Ethical issues in the use and development of GIS. Paper read at GIS/LIS’97.Google Scholar
  27. Pew Research Center (2010). The future of online socializing. Accessed August 26, 2011.
  28. Pogue, D. (2011). Wrapping up the Apple location brouhaha. Accessed August 26, 2011.
  29. Samuelson, P. (n.d.). Privacy as intellectual property?∼pam/papers/privasip_draft.pdf. Accessed August 26, 2011.Google Scholar
  30. Simmhan, Y. L., Plale, B., & Gannon, D. (2005). A survey of data provenance in e-science. ACM SIGMOD Record, 34(3), 31–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Smith, T. R. (1996). The meta-information environment of digital libraries. D-Lib Magazine (July/August).
  32. Sui, D. (2008). The wikification of GIS and its consequences: Or Angelina Jolie’s new tattoo and the future of GIS. Computers, Environment & Urban Systems, 32, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tosta, N. (1999). NSDI was supposed to be a verb. In B. Gittings (Ed.), Innovations in GIS 6 (pp. 3–24). London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  34. Trapani, G. (2009). Details on Twitter’s imminent geolocation launch.
  35. Tsou, M.-H. (2002). An operational metadata framework for searching, indexing, and retrieving distributed geographic information services on the Internet. In M. J. Egenhofer, & D. M. Mark (Eds.), Proceedings, geographic information science. Second International Conference, GIScience 2002, Boulder, CO, USA, September 2002. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  36. West, L. A., Jr., & Hess, T. J. (2002). Metadata as a knowledge management tool: Supporting intelligent agent and end user access to spatial data. Decision Support Systems, 32, 247–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GeographyUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations