The design of the goose translation database is a radical departure from traditional animal research contexts and institutions. The OOZ database embeds an institutional critique, and claims that the leisure and entertainment institutions of art museums and tourism can be involved in the production of truth claims/i.e. actual knowledge. There is an even more controversial claim--this proposal has already caused controversy among computational and animal linguistic colleagues--that the phenomena of language can be better studied by diverse non-experts, i.e. with an open structure of participation.
Moreover, this type of problem falls into a class of problems that are also multi-parameter and cross-disciplinary, and resist formal definitions. All of these problems, I argue, can be fruitfully addressed by diverse (by definition of diversity) non experts, by open structures of participation. The advantage offered by open structures of participation on this intractable problems is simply that more diverse interpretative resources (i.e. throwing lots of different people at the problem) increases the probability of finding coherent or persuasive interpretations. The argument is a statistical one as much as a political one (although I am pro open structures of participation more generally) that make the open structure more productive than the disciplined approaches.