Talk:CSI Effect

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject CSI franchise, an attempt to improve content and create better coordination between articles related to the CSI franchise of TV shows, comics, novels and video games. You can help in improvement by editing CSI Effect or related pages.

Since this term is obviously quite new, it needs to be explained a bit first. WHO deemed the "CSI effect" to be considered a THING, and WHERE did it come from? Where was it mentioned? You see, it sounds like the opinion of a commentator in the media: it needs to be justified as an identified idea in society before we can explain it in an encyclopedia article. Looks a bit amateur right now. -tilgrieog

I believe I first heard about this a year ago in US News and World Report (like Feburary of 2005, to clarify). I would like to say that it's likely it came from there, but I'm not 100% about that. I'm thinking that it might have existed before that. --YoungFreud 10:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've reread the US News link (which was 4/25/05) and I think the term came from there. They specifically mention that prosecutors are dubbing it the CSI effect, but no other source given, although they mention in the same paragraph a prosecutor, Jodi Hoos of Peoria, Ill., telling the jury that they have their "CSI moment" when when the prosection presented the DNA matching the suspect's DNA in a rape case. --YoungFreud 10:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that we have diverged. This talk page is supposed to be more for if the articles should be merged, not the accuracy of the articles. I think that the articles should be merged because they are so simmiler. There is enough of an overlap that it is not worth having two seperate articles. swat671 00:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Evidence? 2 CSI Syndrome 3 "Forensic science-fiction" 4 Don't merge 5 Added academic references and empirical studies

[edit] Evidence?

Is there any evidence or cites so show that the 'CSI Effect' is actually real, ie that jurors now have higher expectations, that criminals learn from the shows or even that police worry about the Effect? Ashmoo 06:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about evidence (scientifice studies and such) but cites are provided in the external links (The Star Tribune article is pretty interesting).--Hraefen 06:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I've just updated the entry with a link to a study which appears to say its not a big problem [1] (Emperor 02:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC))

I work as a Criminalist for a lab and can say with certainty that I believe this 'CSI Effect' is real. It's most evident when talking with friends, family members, or random people about my job, and the responses I usually get are centered around the TV shows. While it is nice to be recognized for my work, these people are idolizing Forensic Scientists and Criminalists, viewing them on a much to high of a pedestal, believing that we do not make mistakes ever, and they should ignore all other evidence but what we give. I've even had a juror come up to me weeks, if not a few months, after a court case excited to remember who I was and what I did, wanting to talk with me on the subject. The surprising thing was I didn't testify, I only observed from the back of the room. I had only entered the courtroom with the Expert. Bsspewer 16:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Being a scientist in molecular diagnostics, I've also met a couple of forensics experts and a lot of them complained that CSI led to some people asking them "Why didn't you do this and that test?". I think far more than the temporal factor cited in the article, it's the budgetary factor that is regularly ignored. You probably know this better but I'd be leave the "months" the tests take to largely be an issue of backlogs. I mean, I can do plenty of DNA sequence analysis within 24h if I can start with it as soon as I have the samples. --OliverH 09:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CSI Syndrome

Merge seems well founded to me. Not enough detail to warrant a separate article. haz (talk) e 18:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It does seem like a logical addition; the Syndrome piece would make a nice addendum to this (laughable) phenomenon that depicts the sad gullibility of our culture.

[edit] "Forensic science-fiction"

I would like to rename the first section "Forensic Science in Fiction." That section title just puts a bad light on forensics in general and doesn't suit the section at all, and it would fit in more with Wikipedia style.--Wikiphilia 01:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don't merge

• Let me be the first voice my objection to the proposed merge. Yes, it's a neologism, and you may not like it, but there are plenty of reliable secondary sources (and 49,500 results on google) to support its contents, including an entire book about the subject. I would say that this more than satisfies the inclusion criterion for neologisms per WP:NEO, and thus deserves its own article.— Sandtiger 21:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added academic references and empirical studies

As many of the references on this page were newspaper and magazine articles, I added some info on actual research on the CSI effect. I know of four published academic papers on the topic (and I'm sure more are on the way). I added a paragraph that describes what these studies found. (And I did some light housekeeping). -Nick^talk 23:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)